CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #66

[Ruminations]

The creepiest thing about this is that text from Puebla about visitation came in just as FD was loading the body and bags into JFDs Suburban down in NC. He was seen leaving Welles at 10:25am. If Puebla had only known what he was up to at that moment….

As for the content, I think Puebla was inquiring if FD had fixed/confirmed the time on Saturday with JFD, or if FD and JFD were still in discussion about the date/time of the visit. (I do not think the comment “still working things out with Jennifer” was in reference to their relationship in general, only the specifics for the visit that weekend).
And since the supervised visitation was a court order, I don’t think JFD could just let FD have the kids the whole weekend (that would be a very expensive supervision at $150/hour!)

MOO.

One could say, as the prosecutor MM said so beautifully bluntly about family court,

NOTHING HAD CHANGED.

The supervised visited remained unchanged since March.

Puebla was continuing as usual.

Fotis and Michelle's guests were celebrating change that only Fotis and Michelle seemed to perceive.

Now the guests, five years later, while not turning against Fotis and Michelle, seem like reluctant witnesses to the normalcy of their friends, "Even in hindsight." I mean, no defense witness seemed all that adamant in declaring that all seemed normal. I think the blonde woman (forgot her name- she was a dinner guest, parent in a blended family and a professional including DV advocacy) and white- haired Hutch seemed especially uncomfortable declaring innocence of their friends. IMO, they knew on some level, maybe even explicitly, that they had lied to themselves and were repeating the lies in court under oath.

It's...there are no words. There are no winners.

MOO

Edited to add: why wasn't Hutch's wife on the witness list? Maybe she just couldn't bring herself to say all was a normal celebration of phantom custody wins. Maybe she was so disgusted that evening she was rattled and left her purse. Maybe she was asked to leave it, and she realized on retrospect that she had been set up to provide an alibi-errand. This is speculation, but now, my inquiring mind wants to know. Maybe the prosecutor should have put her on the witness list and deposed her.

MOO

 

[Jmoose]

“Sometimes, I think the defense would have done better to only have one lawyer sitting at the table, pretend it was bare bones. Call no witnesses. And put their entire defense on in closing arguments.”

Ruminations, I have been thinking this same thing for weeks now.

 

[Jmoose]

One could say, as the prosecutor MM said so beautifully bluntly about family court,

NOTHING HAD CHANGED.

The supervised visited remained unchanged since March.

Puebla was continuing as usual.

Fotis and Michelle's guests were celebrating change that only Fotis and Michelle seemed to perceive.

Now the guests, five years later, while not turning against Fotis and Michelle, seem like reluctant witnesses to the normalcy of their friends, "Even in hindsight." I mean, no defense witness seemed all that adamant in declaring that all seemed normal. I think the blonde woman (forgot her name- she was a dinner guest, parent in a blended family and a professional including DV advocacy) and white- haired Hutch seemed especially uncomfortable declaring innocence of their friends. IMO, they knew on some level, maybe even explicitly, that they had lied to themselves and were repeating the lies in court under oath.

It's...there are no words. There are no winners.

MOO

Edited to add: why wasn't Hutch's wife on the witness list? Maybe she just couldn't bring herself to say all was a normal celebration of phantom custody wins. Maybe she was so disgusted that evening she was rattled and left her purse. Maybe she was asked to leave it, and she realized on retrospect that she had been set up to provide an alibi-errand. This is speculation, but now, my inquiring mind wants to know. Maybe the prosecutor should have put her on the witness list and deposed her.

MOO

I also wondered why Hutch’s wife Erin was not called-maybe the reason the defense did not was they did not want the prosecution to question her about how she so conveniently managed to forget her handbag. Perhaps MT did her now famous “move it out of the way of eyesight, and hope they forget about it”, like she did with PG’s keys?

 

[Ruminations]

I also wondered why Hutch’s wife Erin was not called-maybe the defense did not was the prosecution to question her about how she so conveniently managed to forget her handbag. Perhaps MT did her now famous “move it out of the way of eyesight, and hope they forget about it”, like she did with PG’s keys?

It was a bit paternalistic how Hutch did all the talking for her. Maybe that's just because she was not called, etc.

But it, along with his peace with welcoming MT to the "family," makes me think Hutch was not uncomfortable with Fotis' "use" of women.

MOO

 

[pernickety]

MT thought she was lucky to catch an early break in JAN by the Judge ruling not to allow the State to use her phone's data in court. She saw JS as a hero, then and again, in APR, when he argued successfully to have her ankle monitoring removed.

Yes, and remember--after pre-trial motions hearings-- how MT and JS came out of the courthouse together, smiling broadly, apparently laughing, like "kissing-cousins". I can't believe that she would not have told JS she had a copy of Dr. H's report--IF she had it back then. Makes me suspect it was sent to her only recently. Though not to say she hadn't read it, probably having being shown a copy by Fotis. In the first interview with LE, she asks Bowman if she can tell them about the report, and he tells her not to do so, IIRC.

 

[pernickety]

I also wondered why Hutch’s wife Erin was not called-maybe the defense did not was the prosecution to question her about how she so conveniently managed to forget her handbag. Perhaps MT did her now famous “move it out of the way of eyesight, and hope they forget about it”, like she did with PG’s keys?

Maybe she was carrying a "doggie-bag" home, packed with left-overs? and that's how she forgot her handbag?

 

[SkylarSid]

Hi, I am a newbie, sorry, everyone's got to do it, I have been following this case because I live in West Hartford which borders Avon, Farmington, and North Hartford. First the really stupid question-what does MOO stand for.
And second, what is suppose to have been done with Jennifer's body. Dump the pieces of it in the trash cans on Albany Ave? If so, (foi) Albany Avenue is the center of what used to be called, pardon me, the ghetto. There is a police substation, there are cameras everywhere, cops everywhere, and drug dealers every corner or so that might get in your business if you look like a rich white guy like FD. This is the most policed area in the city of Hartford and the streets off of it are its most violent parts. If I may, it is a war zone. You would have to be totally insane to wonder around there throwing bloody parcels in into the trash

MOO More of my opinion
JMO Just my opinion
IMO in my opinion

We add it to emphasize we are not stating things as facts. Thanks for your insights of the area. And IMO, he was totally insane!

 

[Jmoose]

Yes, and remember--after pre-trial motions hearings-- how MT and JS came out of the courthouse together, smiling broadly, apparently laughing, like "kissing-cousins". I can't believe that she would not have told JS she had a copy of Dr. H's report--IF she had it back then. Makes me suspect it was sent to her only recently. Though not to say she hadn't read it, probably having being shown a copy by Fotis. In the first interview with LE, she asks Bowman if she can tell them about the report, and he tells her not to do so, IIRC.

I have always thought that she always had a copy-and this is why JS pushed sooo hard to get it admitted, because he read it. It’s always been my contention that he didn’t actually need a copy; he needed the court’s permission to use it in court. Plus, MT’s mother has been pushing this document since before JS officially got it, I think. So she has seen it, too.

 

[kaen]

I have always thought that she always had a copy-and this is why JS pushed sooo hard to get it admitted, because he read it. It’s always been my contention that he didn’t actually need a copy; he needed the court’s permission to use it in court. Plus, MT’s mother has been pushing this document since before JS officially got it, I think. So she has seen it, too.

On the day the document was discovered by the gallery, AF stated that she had only ever seen the last four pages with JS never weighing in.... It will be interesting to see what happens with the contempt case and who knew what.

 

[Jmoose]

On the day the document was discovered by the gallery, AF stated that she had only ever seen the last four pages with JS never weighing in.... It will be interesting to see what happens with the contempt case and who knew what.

That’s what AF said, but she knows that nobody is ever going to prove that it isn’t true, so she is pretty safe in saying it. Maybe I am the only one, but I think they are all lying, and will continue to do so, because they can get away with it at this point.

 

[shotgun09]

Geez...
Ms Petu probably has a copy of the report folded up in her notebook which she carried with her to the stand, and gently patted it occasionally. She did claim she has secret evidence ya know. This is so absurd, the taunting of the court

 

[Gardenista]

Okay - i have seen 6 counts of charges mentioned - but i only have 5 - what is the sixth one? If anyone knows?

Count 1:
*Charged (9/5/19) & arraigned (10/4/19) with tampering with evidence involving the borrowed car from work colleague. Plead not guilty. $100K bond. Posted bond (on 9/5/19). Off GPS 4/6/23. Stamford Norwalk #FST-CR-19-0167364-T DOB 9/26/74

Count 2:
*Charged (1/7/20) with conspiracy to commit murder. Plead not guilty. $2M bond. Bond reduced (1/8/20) to $1.5M & bonded out (on 1/9/20). Off GPS 4/6/23. Stamford-Norwalk JD Courthouse #FST-CR20-0241178-T DOB 9/26/74

Count 3, 4 & 6:
*Charged (8/28/20) with 2nd degree hindering prosecution, tampering with physical evidence & conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence. No plea entered yet. $500K bond. Posted bond. Off GPS 4/6/23. Stamford-Norwalk #FST-CR19-0148553-T

A couple of weeks ago, I went back and listened to the judge read the charges to the jury on day 1 of the trial and transcribed what he said. This is what I have

COUNT 1
Conspiracy to commit murder

On or about the 24th day of May 2019 in the area of 69 Wells Lane Michelle Troconis with intent that conduct constituting the crime of murder be performed did agree with Fotis Dulos and other persons to engage in and cause the performance of that conduct and one of them did commit an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy to which Fotis Dulos did assault Jennifer Farber Dulos in her home on the 24th day of May 2019 with the intent to restrain and kill her in violation of sections 53a-48a and 53a-54a subsection a of the Connecticut General
statute

COUNT 2
Conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence

And the aforesaid state's attorney further accuses the defendant Michelle Troconis of conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence and charges that honor about the 24th day of May 2019 in the city of Hartford in the area of Albany Avenue the defendant Michelle Troconis with the intent that conduct constituting the crime of tampering with physical evidence be performed did agree with Fotis Dulos to engage in and cause the performance of that conduct and one of them did commit an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy to it the defendant Michelle Troconis traveled with Fotis Dulos to the Hartford area for the purpose of disposal of physical evidence relating to the murder of Jennifer Farber Dulos in the city of Hartford on the 24th day of May 2019 in violation of section 53a-48 and 53a-155a1 of the Connecticut General statute

COUNT 3
Tampering with physical evidence

And the aforesaid state's attorney further accuses the defendant Michelle Troconis of tampering with physical evidence and charges that on or about the 24th day of May 2019 within the city of Hartford in the area of Albany Avenue the defendant Michelle Troconis believing that a criminal investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency was pending and about to be instituted and an official proceeding was pending and about to be instituted did alter destroy conceal and remove a thing with the purpose to impair its availability in that criminal investigation and official proceeding in violation of section 53a-155a1 and 53a-8a of the Connecticut General statute

COUNT 4
Conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence

And the aforesaid state's attorney further accuses the defendant Michelle Troconis of conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence and charge that on or about the 29th day of May 2019 in the town of Avon in the area of 265 West Main Street the defendant Michelle Troconis with the intent that conduct constituting the crime of tampering with physical evidence be performed did agree with Fotis Dulos to engage in and cause the performance of that conduct and one of them did commit an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy to which Fotis Dulos did transport a 2001 Toyota Tacoma used in the commission of the murder of Jennifer Farber Dulos to Russell Speeders Car Wash and Avon on the 29th day of May 2019 for the purpose of having evidence relating to that murder concealed and destroyed in violation of sections 53a-48a and 53a-155a1 of the Connecticut General statute

COUNT 5
Tampering with physical evidence

And the aforesaid States Attorney further accuses the defendant Michelle Troconis of tampering with physical evidence and charges that on are about the 29th day of May 2019 within the town of Avon in the area of 265 West Main Street the defendant Michelle Troconis believing that a criminal investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency was pending and about to be instituted and an official proceeding was pending and about to be instituted did alter destroy conceal and remove a thing with the purpose to impair its availability in that criminal investigation and official proceeding in violation of section 53a-155a1 and 53a-8a of the Connecticut General statute and finally

COUNT 6
Hindering prosecution in the second degree

And the aforesaid said State's Attorney further accuses the defendant Michelle Troconis of hindering prosecution in the second degree and charges that on or about the 29th day of May 2019 in the town of Avon in the area of 265 West Main Street the defendant Michelle Troconis did render criminal assistance to another person when with intent to prevent hinder and delay the discovery and apprehension of and the lodging of a criminal charge against Fotis Dulos rather whom she knew and believed had committed a class a felony to wit murder did provide Fotis Dulos with transportation and other means of avoiding discovery and apprehension in support of Fotis Dulos' effort to conceal alter and destroy evidence of the murder contained within a 2001 Toyota Tacoma in violation of sections 53a-165a3 and 53a-166 of the Connecticut General statute

 

[afitzy]

Sniped for focus:

And, of course, that ship has sailed. Michelle burned down the whole port.

As I have said many times, Michelle's best defense was probably the truth with an explanation. She had the advantage of unspeakably evil co conspirators, and the negotiating power of her testimony against them. If Petu has information that Michelle is "innocent," it is that Michelle's crazy, abusive, serial cheater boyfriend couldn't be harnessed and Michelle got "caught up." That is not innocence, of course. But, it could have bought Michelle some mercy and Petu probably should have said that like 700 days earlier, to support Bowman in obtaining the best possible legal outcome. She's a good friend, but she didn't do the best thing she could have done for her friend.

MOO

I paged back in this thread to return to your post today to ask you if you have any answers as to the difficult question of 'Why' for MT? On Petu comment you made I absolutely agree, not a good friend, self serving and yet another person in the FD/MT orbit who didn't really care about the Victims in the case.

I read your comment initially yesterday and I do think you have brought us back yet again to a question that nobody seems to have an answer to about MT and its been talked about here since the beginning as we have watched this all play out for nearly 4 years in the legal system in CT.

Your view that, "Michelle's best defence was probably the truth with an explanation' is one that I would bet that if you polled 10 defence attorney's that they would agree with you completely. Atty Bowman obviously imo believed it and he worked hard to facilitate resolution outside of a long court proceeding too. Yet, MT and her family have done nothing but vilify him and his efforts now for 3+ years. WHY?

Yet, instead we have seen MT and her new Counsel pursue a very different path. The different path to me as a non atty is basically the old 'catch me if you can' and 'I know nothing' strategy. But, WHY? Is this the better strategy and strategy with a higher probability outcome? To me as a non atty this seems like a high risk strategy with a high probability of negative outcome as you are pitting your defence against the much greater resources of the State and a very motivated CSP evidence gathering operation and with a highly sympathetic Victim in the form of JF and her 5 beloved children.

I'm confused seeing what I've seen from MT and have been watching this all play out now for years!

I'd be curious to hear what you or the the same group of 10 defence attorneys mentioned above would think about the MT legal strategy so far?

As a non lawyer the strategy we have seen from MT just seems like its a cynical and calculated time based bet on the ineptitude or high turnover of CT States Atty's and a bet that CSP LE evidence not making it to trial for jury to hear and the laxity and lack of professional standards required of legal professionals in CT where we have seen Defence Counsel taking a whip saw to the mountain of evidence for 3+ years and Judges allowing it or the State not responding appropriately to the point where what makes it to trial is quite different from what many here possibly expected.

All this is then combined with years of seeing Jon Schoenhorn imo choosing to not really follow appropriate CT procedures in his behaviour representing his client, leaking case evidence to the public via court motions, leaking confidential information to the public/media and conducting a now 3+ year disinformation campaign in the media on behalf of his client which effectively polluted the jury pool imo along with a social media campaign by MT and the Troconis crew that imo had the same effect.

I've watched most of the MT LE interviews a number of times (painful but there was SO much going on) and I simply see Atty Bowman working very hard on behalf of his client to assist her with presenting what she knows to LE and getting to the truth. The dangling of a deal in front of MT at any point in these interviews wasn't even really hidden as we even see then States Atty Colangelo present in Interview 2. Most folks with a similar charge wouldn't have these opportunities from LE and the State and would simply sit in jail pending trial as they couldn't afford bond imo. Any number of times we see Atty Bowman refocusing and clarifying discussion and questions for MT and he almost always was highly effective in getting to the heart of what was being discussed at the time and yet so many times we saw MT very actively imo working against what Atty Bowman was trying to do to move closer to the 'truth'. LE effectiveness imo in this regard was more of a mixed bag in terms of questioning effectiveness imo but they made it very clear to MT that their goal was always to find JF and they kept emphasising the need for truth and information that could move the investigation forward. MT had 3 obvious shots at a deal THAT WE KNOW OF for her cooperation and dismissed them.

Why?

We have seen the Defence posit the idea that MT in LE faced language barriers (think we can put a pin in this idea as she was offered an interpreter and told to ask if she ever didn't understand something), high stress interviews from LE that resulted in MT shutting down or seeking to simply pacify LE by feeding them what she believed they wanted to hear (not sure here either as while frustration and disbelief was evident imo from LE, I saw nothing but courtesy and professionalism from LE and we saw zero to suggest Russian tactics such as those endured by Navalny either!) and given the overall situation and the stress of the investigation I give LE nothing but credit. LE also regrouped and made Interview 3 smaller and less overwhelming for MT which seemed less stressful but yet the deception and lying from MT continued. Why? We saw Atty Bowman in Interview 3 continuing to assist MT with questions as by this time it seemed that he thought he could still make a difference for his client but by the end of this interview it seemed like he too along with LE simply gave up on MT making any attempt to assist or tell the truth. Again, why?

In this case we see a privileged white woman charged with conspiracy murder (top charge) who has spent less than 4 days in jail and has been freely able to travel now for nearly 4 years imo given every opportunity to cooperate and plea down her involvement and YET she never does so. WHY? Also, based on her treatment by the Courts in CT (no jail pending trial) and imo no valid claims for mistreatment or mishandling of her by LE as the interviews imo were all professionally handled imo there is no evidence imo of coercion or mishandling of MT by LE.

The other baffling thing about what we have seen is MT and the Troconis crew going after Atty Bowman with a vengeance in Social Media and we also see MT artist 'friend' imo hiding behind 1st amendment to put on an 'exhibition' in Avon to continue with the theme that MT was 'betrayed' in some way by Atty Bowman and that she is absolutely innocent. We see the Troconis Crew, MT and the 1st Amendment loving/abusing 'artist' going after PG with a vengeance and we also see MT effectively use her atty and Farmington PD to 'steal back' her motor bike from PG when it appears he paid FD who most likely pocketed MT's cash (this to me was a cherry on top of the sundae moment in Court as it showed FD possibly pick pocking MT).

All this came nearly 2 years after the very aggressive campaign by Schoenhorn in pretrial period to have the MT LE Interviews removed from evidence while he also put forward to the Court I believe that Atty Bowman's counsel to MT was effectively legal malpractice if I understood those proceedings properly.

I have no answers to any of this as its probably above my pay grade but my guess is that if a plea had been made long ago at the time of the murder that MT would have been out of jail by now and free to ski the world to her hearts content. We see MT all through this process making her defence choices willingly and YET complaining bitterly of everything that has happened to her as if she were the victim in this tragic case.

I don't see this either as the only victims I see are JF and her children and MT daughter!



MOO

 

[afitzy]

Megnut, you're amazing....Thank you!

I'm trying to read the text....does this look close to you?
"From your end are u good for the weekend or are u still awaiting
(unknown) (unknown) with Jennifer."

I can't quite decipher the time, but the date is 5/24/2019. The time could be 10:12 or 12:12....

IMO, the Court Supervisor was asking FD if the 5/24/19 meeting date was a go at the time specified or whether FD was still trying to work things out with JF. To me this was confusing as I wasn't sure if it was a reference to FD trying to 'get back together with JF' or whether he was asking if FD was working with JF on the timing for the visitation with the children.

My guess here is that Court Supervisor was questioning the timing so that someone from his office could be made available as it was a holiday weekend and no doubt staff availability was limited.

But, going to the FD texts back and forth with LA it to me seemed like FD was quite clear with her when he wanted the children back in CT but I also don't recall if these messages from Puebla happened before or after the LA texts or if it was all going on at the same time.

People all throughout the trial have been asking if we have ever heard WHETHER MT had made any Memorial Day weekend plans with her daughter as she couldn't be present if the Dulos children were present.

I've gone back and looked at the LE Interviews and NOT ONCE did I see any reference to MT saying what her plans were for Memorial Day weekend with her daughter. If anyone finds anything on this topic please post back as I keep going back in the testimony and cannot find anything.

My guess here is that MT had NO PLANs for Memorial Day weekend other than to spend it with FD at 4Jx.

Moo

 

[Eli9]

I have always thought that she always had a copy-and this is why JS pushed sooo hard to get it admitted, because he read it. It’s always been my contention that he didn’t actually need a copy; he needed the court’s permission to use it in court. Plus, MT’s mother has been pushing this document since before JS officially got it, I think. So she has seen it, too.

This morning I woke up from a dream about that document. JS was still whining to the judge about how it was fundamental to his case to have it entered into evidence.
I think the prosecution did an okay job at letting the jury know that nothing actually changed with respect to custody after it was read by Rose and FD but I hope they put additional emphasis on it in closing arguments.

 

[waldojabba]

On the day the document was discovered by the gallery, AF stated that she had only ever seen the last four pages with JS never weighing in.... It will be interesting to see what happens with the contempt case and who knew what.

JS has said many times he was “on cross questioning a witness “ while the whole thing went down. He was quoted in stamford advocate-
“Speaking to reporters outside court during the lunch break, Schoenhorn said he couldn't talk much about the possible contempt proceeding against his client because he wasn't paying attention at the time prosecutors say Troconis showed the report.

"I don’t know what was shown and I don’t know what was visible or not," he said, adding that it was "a little bit concerning" one of Jennifer Dulos' friends would have known it was the confidential report in question.

"To my knowledge, she does not have that report," Schoenhorn said. "She did not get it from me, let’s put it that way."

So JS tries to frame it as concerning that Carrie Luft would know what’s in the report and indicates basically “ I see nothing”.

The whole hearing sounds like it has no “ teeth” anyway. But I am in the camp that MT already knew what was in it. If she did not get the online copy from JS per JS perchance MT got it from someone JS sent it to like Ms Felson.
if you are looking for honestly that defense table is not the place to look.
All JMO

https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-trial-dulos-contempt-hearing-18671535.php

 

[afitzy]

100% agree
Once you agree that MT has that phone, and is carrying it around the house. Leaving it home during drive to school. Picking it up when she gets home.
You have to agree that she knew that a crime was being committed for which FD needed an alibi and that she was the agreed and planned alibi.
(Add to that fact that she is 100% chill that she wakes up and he’s not there, no message, no note, doesn’t notice car is gone. Like do I lock the house when I drive to school with child? Or not? )

So see all of this.

The phone evidence absolutely convinced me and the @lucegirl detailed post on the topic convinced me with absolute certainty of the conspiracy. The tie between FD and MT was TIGHT and MT commitment was unwavering too as we saw in the LE interviews.

I think what the @lucegirl post did from me was to set the visual of MT on the murder date (with none of her usual middle finger threats to FD in her birddogging too!) simply moving around the huge 4JX house holding the precious FD phone as if it were a precious basket of eggs that she didn't want to break!

To me, just seeing this simple timeline of the FD phone all happening WITHOUT FD is chilling and it proves the advance planning and the awareness of MT as to what her very specific role in on the Murder date.

I very much hope the prosecution presents this graphically to the jury to pound this critical element out in their close.

MOO




MOO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

(Snipped by me for focus): Your view that, "Michelle's best defence was probably the truth with an explanation' is one that I would bet that if you polled 10 defence attorney's that they would agree with you completely. Atty Bowman obviously imo believed it and he worked hard to facilitate resolution outside of a long court proceeding too. Yet, MT and her family have done nothing but vilify him and his efforts now for 3+ years. WHY?
MOO

Agree, and one can only speculate as to the defendant and reasons for pursuing the course chosen. Reflecting on much of the evidence and evolution of the case, it IMO seems in large part to center back to that ‘Report’? Remember that the defendant IIRC brought that document up in her early interviews with investigators; and I think defendant MT’s earlier attorney was also in some of those conversations? And I think some discussion since and testimony included statements on the now dead FD likely beliefs on their (FD & MT) perceived results and ‘positive support’ of that document.

It seems that reliance on that ‘Report’ may drive many of the tactics? Even current defense counsel continues efforts to ‘toss it on the table’ for evidentiary value; despite it being sealed by another court. And this is not to say it is the only factor; but IMO it sure appears to center prominently in the approach and belief of the defendant and her supporters. MOO

 

[afitzy]

JS has said many times he was “on cross questioning a witness “ while the whole thing went down. He was quoted in stamford advocate-
“Speaking to reporters outside court during the lunch break, Schoenhorn said he couldn't talk much about the possible contempt proceeding against his client because he wasn't paying attention at the time prosecutors say Troconis showed the report.

"I don’t know what was shown and I don’t know what was visible or not," he said, adding that it was "a little bit concerning" one of Jennifer Dulos' friends would have known it was the confidential report in question.

"To my knowledge, she does not have that report," Schoenhorn said. "She did not get it from me, let’s put it that way."

So JS tries to frame it as concerning that Carrie Luft would know what’s in the report and indicates basically “ I see nothing”.

The whole hearing sounds like it has no “ teeth” anyway. But I am in the camp that MT already knew what was in it. If she did not get the online copy from JS per JS perchance MT got it from someone JS sent it to like Ms Felson.
if you are looking for honestly that defense table is not the place to look.
All JMO

https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-trial-dulos-contempt-hearing-18671535.php

JS per usual was word parsing and blowing smoke. Not a surprise.

JS didn't say WHO he might have shared the report with. Mama T perhaps? An office assistant perhaps?

Family Court had a very strict protocol in place for the handling of the discredited report.

My question to JS and Associates is simply this: Did you follow the same requirements in your handling of the document as was outlined in 2 paragraphs very clearly by Judge Heller in Family Court?

My belief is that JS took the report in this trial as evidence due him (I disagree with this original Ruling from Judge Blawie iirc), did zero to secure it, and chose to not follow any of the guidelines set forth by Judge Heller in Family Court to very specifically protect the parties involved and the CHILDREN.

In short, more slipshod handling of a sealed document by Jon Schoenhorn. Frankly I think the offices of Jon Schoenhorn should be searched, the report in its original form secured and held by the Court, and the office servers searched by a taint team for any/all evidence of the Report and purged along with any/all backups. Will this ever be done in CT? My strong guess is NO, but I do wish the impacted Victims would sue Jon Schoenhorn to make this all a reality as what he did imo is absolutely wrong on so many levels and also contrary to the original guidelines set forth by Judge Heller in Family Court. Jon Schoenhorn tried to gain an advantage from an 'evidence grab' in the MT trial but then chose to not follow any of safeguards put in place to protect the Victims imo and for this I believe he needs to be punished severely either in the Contempt hearings or in Civil Proceedings or in Family Court by Judge Heller.

My guess is that we will see Jon Schoenhorn with his Tesla in autopilot mode zooming down from Hartford dictating to his assistant to create a log for the report handling. I can further see his assistant being asked about the creation date for the log in the Contempt Hearing and then saying, "Your honour, we created the log yesterday because Jon Schoenhorn said we needed one". Judge then asks Assistant about the report and is told, "Your honour, the report was on our server in the office, I digitised it and it was sent out to multiple parties for review and further discussion"..... On and on and on... IMO simply more disrespect on top of everything else we have seen from Defence Counsel over the past 3+ years. Such behaviour imo deserves to be punished and punished harshly.

Jon Schonehorn imo then proceeded to MINE the confidential information in the discredited report to spend 3+ years discrediting JF and absolutely taint the trial of MT with the mere presence of a report that also imo is irrelevant to the proceedings. He did this knowing that the report could NEVER be part of evidence and as such there was no way the jury would ever see the totality of the report to prove that what he was saying was simply implausible and a lie and that MT and FD could NEVER HAVE BEEN HAPPY IN MAY/APRIL as all the bogus filings put forward by corrupt lawyer Atty Micheal Rose on behalf of FD had been DENIED by Judge Heller and visitation as being supervisory had been reaffirmed also by Judge Heller in April, 2019. Jon Schoenhorn used a discredited report that nobody could see to simply create a false narrative as to the state of things in Family Court that based on the record in Family Court simply imo isn't plausible and I say this as someone who read the Family Court file ages ago with the exception of the sealed documents. That Judge R allowed this to take place in this trial is something that I continue to find simply mind blowing as its an absolute false narrative!

I very much think first Judge Blawie and then Judge R erred greatly in allowing the discredited report into the trial and then Judge R it appears did zero to make sure that the report and its contents were being honoured and respected in the very clear way that was outlined by Judge Heller in Family Court. Why did Judge Blawie simply remove the report from the CSP and as such remove it from the MT trial evidence pot? Just another imo Judge Blawie error as this sad case suffered greatly imo from 3-4 Judges with little to no continuity too imo. Par for the course in Corrupticut imo too.

I do believe Judge R most likely believed that Jon Schoenhorn would treat the report as it was supposed to be treated as outlined by Judge Heller but per usual we see Jon Schoenhorn disregard protocol, not care about the Dulos children or the victim and treat the discredited report with imo absolute disrespect and lack of care and having unclear security in his office or the required log that Judge Heller demanded be present for the report. Did Jon Schoenhorn allow any copies made of the report? Did Jon Schoenhorn allow the report to be digitised and kept on his office server or given to someone else to review? Did Jon Schoenhorn keep the required log established by Judge Heller for the report once he got a copy? I very much the Contempt hearing is public and I do wonder if public questions might be submitted to the Judge Hernandez on the matter as all I can say is I HAVE QUESTIONS about Jon Schoenhorn and his handling of this report !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jon Schoenhorn imo had a duty to care for the report and it was given to him with that understanding. To the extent that he breeched this duty of care to the discredited report I do hope he is investigated, prosecuted, fined and censored as I believe his use of this discredited report has been beyond anything remotely acceptable or understandable. I also wonder if Civil Litigation against Jon Schoenhorn might even be possible for his imo mishandling of the report on the behalf of the no doubt impacted victims?

Don't think that Audrey Felson is in the clear here either as anything outlined above applies to her as well.

What a despicable bunch of unethical attorneys here to use a report with safeguards in place TO PROTECT VICTIMS and then we see them simply disregarding the Victims and their rights for their own purposes in defending MT.

Shameful, Disgraceful and IMO MOST PROBABLY ILLEGAL TOO.

PS. If an attorney can explain to me how Judge R can allow in the discredited report (disallowed from trial evidence) and then further allow Jon Schoenhorn and Audrey Felson to allude to the report and characterise its contents FOR WEEKS when so far as I can see based on what Judge Heller said about the handling of the Report this all would be a VIOLATION in Family Court requirements for the handling of the report I would appreciate it. I've asked 3 attorneys so far about this and they are baffled as to how this was all allowed by Judge R. Also very much wonder where Judge Heller is? Probably still out to lunch imo.....

Another thing in this trial that I simply do not understand as this simply didn't have to play out the way it did. Why was nobody looking out for the VICTIMS here? Why did the State not fight harder on their behalf? Why was there no coordination between Family Court and Criminal Court here that we can see? Did Judge R ever pick up the phone and speak with Judge Heller? Who is the person responsible for coordination between Family and Criminal Courts in CT? Nothing but questions on top of questions....


MOO

 

[pernickety]

JS has said many times he was “on cross questioning a witness “ while the whole thing went down. He was quoted in stamford advocate-
“Speaking to reporters outside court during the lunch break, Schoenhorn said he couldn't talk much about the possible contempt proceeding against his client because he wasn't paying attention at the time prosecutors say Troconis showed the report.

"I don’t know what was shown and I don’t know what was visible or not," he said, adding that it was "a little bit concerning" one of Jennifer Dulos' friends would have known it was the confidential report in question.

"To my knowledge, she does not have that report," Schoenhorn said. "She did not get it from me, let’s put it that way."

So JS tries to frame it as concerning that Carrie Luft would know what’s in the report and indicates basically “ I see nothing”.

The whole hearing sounds like it has no “ teeth” anyway. But I am in the camp that MT already knew what was in it. If she did not get the online copy from JS per JS perchance MT got it from someone JS sent it to like Ms Felson.
if you are looking for honestly that defense table is not the place to look.
All JMO

https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-trial-dulos-contempt-hearing-18671535.php

Here's portions of CT law re confidentiality of mental health provider records: JFD’s kin may have a civil cause of action against violators of the statutes. Wonder, per Sec. 52-146i, whether the report was labeled confidential by Dr. H or anyone else who passed it on.

Sec. 52-146d. (Formerly Sec. 52-146a). Privileged communications between psychiatric mental health provider and patient. Definitions. As used in sections 52-146d to 52-146i, inclusive...

Sec. 52-146j. Judicial relief. (a) Any person aggrieved by a violation of sections 52-146d to 52-146j, inclusive, may petition the superior court for the judicial district in which he resides, or, in the case of a nonresident of the state, the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford, for appropriate relief, including temporary and permanent injunctions, and the petition shall be privileged with respect to assignment for trial.

(b) Any person aggrieved by a violation of sections 52-146d to 52-146j, inclusive, may prove a cause of action for civil damages.

Sec. 52-146i. Labeling of confidential records. All written communications or records disclosed to another person or agency shall bear the following statement: “The confidentiality of this record is required under chapter 899 of the Connecticut general statutes. This material shall not be transmitted to anyone without written consent or other authorization as provided in the aforementioned statutes.” A copy of the consent form specifying to whom and for what specific use the communication or record is transmitted or a statement setting forth any other statutory authorization for transmittal and the limitations imposed thereon shall accompany such communication or record. In cases where the disclosure is made orally, the person disclosing the information shall inform the recipient that such information is governed by the provisions of sections 52-146d to 52-146j, inclusive.

See citations of above statutes in CT SC ruling: Freedom of Information Officer, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission et al. No. 19371. Decided: September 22, 2015