Anyone watching the Tammi Smith trial on InSession? It's one of the rare trials they show live, it seems.
Tammi Smith was the woman who wanted to adopt, with her husband, Baby Gabriel from his parents, Elizabeth and Logan. I think she met Elizabeth at an airport? Elizabeth is the one who claimed to Logan (her ex) in a recorded phone call that she had killed Gabriel, stuffed him in the diaper bag (makes me sick to repeat this

) and put him in a dumpster. No body found. She's changed her story a few times.
Here's a link to an article about this trial:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...l-against-woman-baby-gabriel-case-begins.html
Here's part of the article:
Tammi, 40, of Scottsdale, is charged with forgery and conspiracy to commit custodial interference with Gabriel's mother, Elizabeth Johnson.
Johnson, 25, of Tempe, is held without bond on kidnapping, child abuse, custodial interference and conspiracy to commit custodial interference. She awaits a September court date.
Listening to the recorded phone calls between Elizabeth and Logan makes me think she really did kill Gabriel.

Logan turned her into a monster, per Elizabeth. Accused him of having girlfriends, based on what she saw on his FB. And...who does this remind you of?...she said to him something like "All you care about it Gabriel...you don't care about ME."
A couple of interesting things about this case (well, lots of interesting things)...1) in Arizona, the jurors can ask questions during the trial. Never heard of such a thing. I guess what they do (because they did have a question today, but I didn't see how it all played out) is somehow present the question to the judge, then the judge gets together in a sidebar with the lawyers on both sides, and they decide if it can be asked. It was NOT allowed. Judge said that he didn't want to discourage future questions, but that this one would not be allowed. Well, at least they sound INTERESTED. The CA jurors never asked a question DURING DELIBERATIONS (if we can call what they did deliberating). And 2) if any witnesses don't want to be televised, they don't have to be (names still given during swearing in, and their testimony can be heard), so this one witness gets sworn in off camera, and then en route to the witness stand, the cameras got a VERY clear shot of him.

I'd sue!