CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 ARRESTS #64

doodles1211 · May 26, 2019

New Canaan Police are looking for a missing woman Saturday, May 25.

Jennifer Dulos, 50, was reported missing around 7:30 p.m. Friday, May 24. A sliver alert has been issued.

New Canaan Police with the assistance of the Connecticut State Police initiated a search and an investigation both of which are ongoing as of 8:45 am. Saturday..

Anyone with information related to Dulos’s whereabouts should contact Sgt. Joseph Farenga at 203-505-1332.

Knitty · Feb 16, 2024

Please continue the discussion here.

lucegirl · Feb 16, 2024

[Just tried to post this on the last thread which is closed - apologies if it’s not in context with the old thread…]

I think I mentioned before the complex balancing of interests he has to weigh. Just to highlight the big ones and what he is wrestling with regarding the laptop and custody report.

Preserve the 1) the jury from taint; 2) the integrity of court and 3) the public perception and confidence in the justice system.

The Jury
He’s got to be worried about mistrial via jury taint. It’s really hard to keep a jury on media black-out. I would not be shocked if at least one, if not more, of the jurors, via unavoidable osmosis within the walls of the courthouse, are aware that something big went down. And - well - you can’t blame them for being curious. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a sitting defendant, mid-murder trial, called out individually by the judge for violation of a court order. Yikes. Usually it’s an attorney or a witness tempting contempt. If a juror were to know or think the D is likely in contempt of court - just wow. Prejudice on steroids. Mistrial.

The Mom
I’m sure he is disgusted with the whole D Team and family - but he has to appear even-handed and minimize any further circus-like activities (in or out of court) that could unavoidably taint the jury. If he singles out mom and not the whole gallery - he risks Looking biased (it would take a whole lot more but the D Team can spin a yarn if given an inch). Just look at how everything blew up yesterday when the “C” (Contempt) word was uttered (in that booming voice no less). So here we are at roughly 3/4 the way through trial - is tossing the mom worth the risk and people yelling and screaming with signs outside. The mom is also potentially in contempt, so I won’t rule out the contempt hearing including other bad actors.

The Laptop
I will say I am surprised they didn’t take it because it’s a walking/talking on-going violation of a court order AND because of the risk to minors/victims. I am puzzled by that. An electronic copy of a sealed document in the possession of the D who shows no regard for the law is reckless. I don’t know if he was waiting for corroboration from the State about the contents - or if it was taken from her outside of court. Seems to me D Counsel has some exposure if they disseminated it. I found the D Counsel argument about the laptop insulting - they needed to say “We made sure that D knows not to violate the court’s orders …”. That omission is not lost on the Judge. I think she is toast on this issue alone.

Mid-Trial Contempt Hearing
I did not expect him to take up a contempt hearing this morning for a few reasons - mainly massive pro-D delay. This is a separate proceeding (I think has to be heard by a judge who isn’t the charger of the contempt). D Counsel would request all kinds of time to prepare, select a judge, voir dire, and all the baloney - and it would make D and D Counsel - “unavailable” to sit for the murder trial. You can’t ask this jury at this stage to wait indefinitely. While we all want to see D face consequences now - we have to keep focused on the murder conviction IMO. Also, the State is in the middle of presenting some of its most compelling testimony. We want all that driving madness between 4JC and 80MS (and the newly revealed SMOKE) fresh in their minds.
Continued Laptop Use by D Today/Court Integrity
If I were the State, I would start the day tomorrow with (put on the record) “Your Honor if I may ….While we were presenting important evidence and testimony central to our case yesterday, the multiple Smoke Events at D’s house on the day of the murder … Defendant, the day after the Court reprimanded her regarding her laptop and issued a separate ruling that no devices/laptops other than for counsel, she is again, flagrantly ignoring the Court’s orders. D Counsel’s laptop (specifically D Counsel who stood up to assure the Court they had taken precautions regarding D’s laptop and laptop use), allowed her laptap to migrate over to Defendant’s seat, just as if there had been no restriction at all, and in addition, D is actively using her phone during Court time which is just another show of disrespect to the Court. It’s clear this Defendant has no regard for the integrity of the Court, the law, the jury, the victim, the minor victims, and we request …. XYZ consequences.” Not really sure what the XYZ ask would ask for - but getting on the record - D’s doubling down on 2 court orders - her goose is surely cooked on contempt.
Also - the Judge did admonish D Counsel for impugning the Court which was overdue, but at least it’s on the record and that is an ugly label for a judge to affix to Counsel. He basically said in polite terms “You are stinking up my Courtroom, and I don’t like it.” Ouch.

“Justice”
I put in quotes because there are 2 components the judge has to weigh - justice for the family and victim - but - also that pesky presumption of innocence that D is still entitled to until a verdict which requires him to keep prejudicial evidence out (other than that allowed by the rules of evidence). But more importantly- he wants to get this trial to a Verdict and minimize appealable issues. This Judge does not ever want to make that family sit in that courtroom and see that shirt brought back out, or the horrifying smoke, by way of a retrial.
That’s all I got for now! Wine time!

Genieeasy · Feb 16, 2024

Opening this new thread #64 with the obvious request and goal for this trial
“Justice For Jennifer”

kaen · Feb 16, 2024

Brought this over because I wanted to add: At the end of the day, we all want this jury to be able to complete this trial, even though I would like some other calls by the judge on certain things, he has taken care to insure that the jury's time, energy and sacrifice are not in vain.

I was not surprised by the Contempt hearing being moved. Nor was I surprised that the judge took all gallery to task. If there are people making motions to witnesses or defendants it is not appropriate. Hearts and well wishes for anyone should not be tolerated. Supporters of MT should not and neither should supporters of the Farber/Dulos family. It is a little unbelievable that the defense had seen things and let it slide bc they should not have. I was glad that the judge told everyone to stop doing anything that could jeopardize the case. I care that JD is represented with respect AND I also care that the jury is able to move forward in a clean and fair way rather than be dismissed for some BS that occurs in the gallery.

The defense counsels tantrum on his expert witnesses was not unexpected. I think that the relationship between the defendant and her legal team is more than strained and is almost hostile at this point. Even JS's "sientete" to his client felt dismissive and hostile. At this point MT often leaves and doesn't say a word to either of them at the end of the court day. I am sure things got frostier when they found out the antics she was pulling. JS has been struggling to get any of his motions and challenges granted. I think he thought this would be easier and it has been harder--- he is, in effect, representing FD for free and dealing with videos that are damning and a client who clearly is hiding things, again and again.

The judge's ruling on the document made sense to me for two reasons. 1. If he precludes the defense from any option to present their defense the appeal will surely go in her favor. So he split the baby. 2. Giving the defense such a limited amount of time to create a document means that they will have to stay within what has been cobbled together which means that it will be easier for the prosecution to tear it apart. It is a bunch of work and I am sure not what they want to do with their long weekend but they got something.....a trimmed down scope. The defense is going to pay big bucks AND will not be able to cherry pick what they wanted to put in the document nearly to the degree they had hoped.

citygirl · Feb 16, 2024

lucegirl said:
[Just tried to post this on the last thread which is closed - apologies if it’s not in context with the old thread…]

I think I mentioned before the complex balancing of interests he has to weigh. Just to highlight the big ones and what he is wrestling with regarding the laptop and custody report.

Preserve the 1) the jury from taint; 2) the integrity of court and 3) the public perception and confidence in the justice system.

The Jury
He’s got to be worried about mistrial via jury taint. It’s really hard to keep a jury on media black-out. I would not be shocked if at least one, if not more, of the jurors, via unavoidable osmosis within the walls of the courthouse, are aware that something big went down. And - well - you can’t blame them for being curious. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a sitting defendant, mid-murder trial, called out individually by the judge for violation of a court order. Yikes. Usually it’s an attorney or a witness tempting contempt. If a juror were to know or think the D is likely in contempt of court - just wow. Prejudice on steroids. Mistrial.

The Mom
I’m sure he is disgusted with the whole D Team and family - but he has to appear even-handed and minimize any further circus-like activities (in or out of court) that could unavoidably taint the jury. If he singles out mom and not the whole gallery - he risks Looking biased (it would take a whole lot more but the D Team can spin a yarn if given an inch). Just look at how everything blew up yesterday when the “C” (Contempt) word was uttered (in that booming voice no less). So here we are at roughly 3/4 the way through trial - is tossing the mom worth the risk and people yelling and screaming with signs outside. The mom is also potentially in contempt, so I won’t rule out the contempt hearing including other bad actors.

The Laptop
I will say I am surprised they didn’t take it because it’s a walking/talking on-going violation of a court order AND because of the risk to minors/victims. I am puzzled by that. An electronic copy of a sealed document in the possession of the D who shows no regard for the law is reckless. I don’t know if he was waiting for corroboration from the State about the contents - or if it was taken from her outside of court. Seems to me D Counsel has some exposure if they disseminated it. I found the D Counsel argument about the laptop insulting - they needed to say “We made sure that D knows not to violate the court’s orders …”. That omission is not lost on the Judge. I think she is toast on this issue alone.

Mid-Trial Contempt Hearing
I did not expect him to take up a contempt hearing this morning for a few reasons - mainly massive pro-D delay. This is a separate proceeding (I think has to be heard by a judge who isn’t the charger of the contempt). D Counsel would request all kinds of time to prepare, select a judge, voir dire, and all the baloney - and it would make D and D Counsel - “unavailable” to sit for the murder trial. You can’t ask this jury at this stage to wait indefinitely. While we all want to see D face consequences now - we have to keep focused on the murder conviction IMO. Also, the State is in the middle of presenting some of its most compelling testimony. We want all that driving madness between 4JC and 80MS (and the newly revealed SMOKE) fresh in their minds.
Continued Laptop Use by D Today/Court Integrity
If I were the State, I would start the day tomorrow with (put on the record) “Your Honor if I may ….While we were presenting important evidence and testimony central to our case yesterday, the multiple Smoke Events at D’s house on the day of the murder … Defendant, the day after the Court reprimanded her regarding her laptop and issued a separate ruling that no devices/laptops other than for counsel, she is again, flagrantly ignoring the Court’s orders. D Counsel’s laptop (specifically D Counsel who stood up to assure the Court they had taken precautions regarding D’s laptop and laptop use), allowed her laptap to migrate over to Defendant’s seat, just as if there had been no restriction at all, and in addition, D is actively using her phone during Court time which is just another show of disrespect to the Court. It’s clear this Defendant has no regard for the integrity of the Court, the law, the jury, the victim, the minor victims, and we request …. XYZ consequences.” Not really sure what the XYZ ask would ask for - but getting on the record - D’s doubling down on 2 court orders - her goose is surely cooked on contempt.
Also - the Judge did admonish D Counsel for impugning the Court which was overdue, but at least it’s on the record and that is an ugly label for a judge to affix to Counsel. He basically said in polite terms “You are stinking up my Courtroom, and I don’t like it.” Ouch.

“Justice”
I put in quotes because there are 2 components the judge has to weigh - justice for the family and victim - but - also that pesky presumption of innocence that D is still entitled to until a verdict which requires him to keep prejudicial evidence out (other than that allowed by the rules of evidence). But more importantly- he wants to get this trial to a Verdict and minimize appealable issues. This Judge does not ever want to make that family sit in that courtroom and see that shirt brought back out, or the horrifying smoke, by way of a retrial.
That’s all I got for now! Wine time!

You consistently bring me peace.
MOO.

MX27875 · Feb 16, 2024

I can see the contempt hearing going like this:

Judge: “Michelle, why did you have that displayed on your laptop?”

Michelle: “Eeeeeeeehhhhhh”

pernickety · Feb 16, 2024

lucegirl said:
The Laptop
I will say I am surprised they didn’t take it because it’s a walking/talking on-going violation of a court order AND because of the risk to minors/victims. I am puzzled by that. An electronic copy of a sealed document in the possession of the D who shows no regard for the law is reckless. I don’t know if he was waiting for corroboration from the State about the contents - or if it was taken from her outside of court. Seems to me D Counsel has some exposure if they disseminated it. I found the D Counsel argument about the laptop insulting - they needed to say “We made sure that D knows not to violate the court’s orders …”. That omission is not lost on the Judge. I think she is toast on this issue alone.

If the report was sent thru' the internet, then the feds could help investigate how it got in her computer, no? Maybe NP sent it to her. He may be harboring resentment against Gloria Farber for taking away a good part of the retainer he got from Fotis and then preventing NP from talking or writing about the case. I wouldn't put it past him. MOO

lucegirl · Feb 16, 2024

I don’t think I’m going to make it through Interview 3. My ears are bleeding. But I will jump ahead now to the discussion about D’s untimely offered experts. Meanwhile it’s 6:36 PM in California… wonder how the reports are coming along…

I enjoyed the interview #3 exchange about the BBQ dinner - MT “I was showing rugs, sheepskins, beige, black, they want grey in a different size, I showed my rug powerpoint on my computer, on the glass table, it’s round, and its glass, then get to the meat, Renata and me with the meat, frozen meat, Fotis was present and went out to get different meat, not frozen, and he is back with meat, I wash meat…”. LE “Okay - you thought you had meat, but you didn’t, so you got new meat. Now back to the timeline…”

In all seriousness I am fascinated by the “skill” of not answering questions this way - weaving in all that detail about nothing - making it sound like you are trying to be cooperative but you are 100% deceptive - sticking to the truth about everything except for what you are being asked. Using your “language” barrier to make you seem oh so innocent. “What do you call that thing… uh uh uh uh” Being able to turn off any emotion. Mask guilt, shame, fear. Diabolical.

I need a deep dive on pathological liars.

lucegirl · Feb 16, 2024

pernickety said:
If the report was sent thru' the internet, then the feds could help investigate how it got in her computer, no? Maybe NP sent it to her. He may be harboring resentment against Gloria Farber for taking away a good part of the retainer he got from Fotis and then preventing NP from talking or writing about the case. I wouldn't put it past him. MOO

Other reasons why the laptop should have been seized. Even without a warrant, evidence that is in danger of imminently disappearing can be seized.

kaen · Feb 16, 2024

lucegirl said:
The Laptop
I will say I am surprised they didn’t take it because it’s a walking/talking on-going violation of a court order AND because of the risk to minors/victims. I am puzzled by that. An electronic copy of a sealed document in the possession of the D who shows no regard for the law is reckless. I don’t know if he was waiting for corroboration from the State about the contents - or if it was taken from her outside of court. Seems to me D Counsel has some exposure if they disseminated it. I found the D Counsel argument about the laptop insulting - they needed to say “We made sure that D knows not to violate the court’s orders …”. That omission is not lost on the Judge. I think she is toast on this issue alone.

We don't actually know where the laptop is. The Prosecutor said that it was indeed the report on the computer so I have a hunch that maybe the prosecution handed the computer over to a taint team to investigate. If so, I doubt that the defendant has the computer or any files. I would bet that they would not want it said in open court that they had seized the computer. Seems like everyone was very mummmmm on the contempt charges that may be pending.

Tink56 · Feb 16, 2024

lucegirl said:
I don’t think I’m going to make it through Interview 3. My ears are bleeding. But I will jump ahead now to the discussion about D’s untimely offered experts. Meanwhile it’s 6:36 PM in California… wonder how the reports are coming along…

I enjoyed the interview #3 exchange about the BBQ dinner - MT “I was showing rugs, sheepskins, beige, black, they want grey in a different size, I showed my rug powerpoint on my computer, on the glass table, it’s round, and its glass, then get to the meat, Renata and me with the meat, frozen meat, Fotis was present and went out to get different meat, not frozen, and he is back with meat, I wash meat…”. LE “Okay - you thought you had meat, but you didn’t, so you got new meat. Now back to the timeline…”

In all seriousness I am fascinated by the “skill” of not answering questions this way - weaving in all that detail about nothing - making it sound like you are trying to be cooperative but you are 100% deceptive - sticking to the truth about everything except for what you are being asked. Using your “language” barrier to make you seem oh so innocent. “What do you call that thing… uh uh uh uh” Being able to turn off any emotion. Mask guilt, shame, fear. Diabolical.

I need a deep dive on pathological liars.

Perfect reaction to Interview #3....I was reduced to listening to the video of today's trial and decided I couldn't have managed to stay in the same pseudo conversation with the defendant for more than 30 minutes.

It's now 7:04 in California....Hope those reports are rolling out. The most populous state has many experts and glad JS found one for his special defendant and needs. In fact, in this fair state he probably could have found 2 or 3 experts, but the cost will be high.

Off to find a comedy to take my mind off today's testimony and videos, Thanks for the laugh.

Tink56 · Feb 16, 2024

kaen said:
We don't actually know where the laptop is. The Prosecutor said that it was indeed the report on the computer so I have a hunch that maybe the prosecution handed the computer over to a taint team to investigate. If so, I doubt that the defendant has the computer or any files. I would bet that they would not want it said in open court that they had seized the computer. Seems like everyone was very mummmmm on the contempt charges that may be pending.

Didn't the defendant's attorney say, "She didn't bring it with her today." I hope that laptop is still recoverable on Tuesday.

afitzy · Feb 16, 2024

lucegirl said:
I don’t think I’m going to make it through Interview 3. My ears are bleeding. But I will jump ahead now to the discussion about D’s untimely offered experts. Meanwhile it’s 6:36 PM in California… wonder how the reports are coming along…

I enjoyed the interview #3 exchange about the BBQ dinner - MT “I was showing rugs, sheepskins, beige, black, they want grey in a different size, I showed my rug powerpoint on my computer, on the glass table, it’s round, and its glass, then get to the meat, Renata and me with the meat, frozen meat, Fotis was present and went out to get different meat, not frozen, and he is back with meat, I wash meat…”. LE “Okay - you thought you had meat, but you didn’t, so you got new meat. Now back to the timeline…”

In all seriousness I am fascinated by the “skill” of not answering questions this way - weaving in all that detail about nothing - making it sound like you are trying to be cooperative but you are 100% deceptive - sticking to the truth about everything except for what you are being asked. Using your “language” barrier to make you seem oh so innocent. “What do you call that thing… uh uh uh uh” Being able to turn off any emotion. Mask guilt, shame, fear. Diabolical.

I need a deep dive on pathological liars.

Thanks for this! I was typing live at the time and simply putting down the first thing that came to my mind about what i was seeing in interview 3 and pathological liar and liar, liar pants on fire imagery was something that kept coming to me over and over. LE could ask her if she is eating a sandwich in real time and she would prevaricate and talk about making the sandwich and finding the right plate and how she wasn't sure if she should have iced tea or coffee. Its simply stunning to watch and your quotes about what you were watching at the time on the other thread captured it perfectly I thought. I also don't think she is capable of answering yes or no and I do know that this issue can sometimes be cultural so Im sure we will be treated to Defence testimony on the topic.

I still can't believe LE tried 3 times to get her to cooperate and she essentially gave them the middle finger each time. Interview 3 I thought was a bit different in that she seemed oddly more arrogant, calm and in control and at times I truly wondered if she thought she was smarter than LE. She didn't blink when she saw the Officer show her how they had that big chart with all her various answers to interview questions from interviews 1 and 2. She wasn't afraid at all in interview 3. Wonder why? But also, how many people get such opportunities for a potentially reduced sentence and simply continue to lie?

Defendant when given the choice between the truth and lie will always pick a lie or a long winding road answer to nowhere rather than answering the question. She simply cannot directly address a question and I do wonder if we shall see Defence address this in a cultural way or even language way? IDK, lying in spanish is really no different from lying in english so I'm curious what Defence expert will say about the multicultural aspects of prevarication? Insanity. But, also a huge missed opportunity.

So agree with your view of Defendant this time making more effective manipulative use of language differences. It was craftily done too and a couple of times the Detectives did get sucked in but I think they did it knowing what MT was trying to do. It was fascinating to watch it all play out as this time after the prior 2 interviews LE knew what MT was doing and I couldn't believe that huge long paper LE had comparing and contrasting all her responses. Well done Det Kimball! LE was prepared for interview 3 and even though they probably knew what MT would do, at least they tried again. But, my guess is that they did in for Atty Bowman. Just a guess.

But, it was the interaction with her atty that I was so curious if you saw too! Atty Bowman at the beginning of the sorry interview was right by her side and tried so damn hard to help her and by the end of the interview seemed to be 3 ft away and crammed in the corner and just watching MT as if he simply couldn't believe that interview 3 was no different than interview 1 and 2. I think he used his connection to States Atty Colangelo to get MT each of those 3 interviews and then he sat back in the interviews and simply watched her light herself and fire and strike the match. I think by interview 3 Atty Bowman was quite clear as to who and what he was dealing with as even in interview 3 at times the alibi script was in plain view and even if LE called her on it, she still circled back to it.

But, it was the Judges stunning comments about Det. Kimball even doing interview 3 simply because he knew that interviews 1 and 2 were full of mistruths (don't think he used word lie directly but I don't recall exact word he used). Judge R made a very bold statement also about Defendant credibility to the Jury as being impt too that had to sink Mama Troconis and MT and I wonder if its the reason Mama Troconis left the Courtroom early today?

MOO

afitzy · Feb 16, 2024

Tink56 said:
Didn't the defendant's attorney say, "She didn't bring it with her today." I hope that laptop is still recoverable on Tuesday.

Yes, atty said 'its not here today' or something to that effect. Do hope Atty Felson is reprimanded for giving MT access to her computer.
MOO

lucegirl · Feb 16, 2024

kaen said:
We don't actually know where the laptop is. The Prosecutor said that it was indeed the report on the computer so I have a hunch that maybe the prosecution handed the computer over to a taint team to investigate. If so, I doubt that the defendant has the computer or any files. I would bet that they would not want it said in open court that they had seized the computer. Seems like everyone was very mummmmm on the contempt charges that may be pending.

I think that is highly likely. Seems incomplete to put something as serious as contempt on the record, based on a document under seal to protect minors, and then not remove the offending device and files from the offender, from which they can search where she disseminated the file. Ugh. Sooooo troubling. And this is all on top of the multiple times the Court addressed the compelling need to keep the document sealed - and admonished D Counsel for crossing the yellow line during cross with the GAL. It’s really quite extraordinary. And I think part of whatever went down was an order not to address the contempt issue and/or anything related to the interim steps taken by the court to mitigate the D’s willful exposure of the report.

afitzy · Feb 16, 2024

lucegirl said:
Other reasons why the laptop should have been seized. Even without a warrant, evidence that is in danger of imminently disappearing can be seized.

Yes. But, that is also why I was surprised that the MT cell phone that was seized at 4Jx was tossed over the search warrant issue. Judge R totally didn't buy the exigent circumstances argument which I never understood as that whole scenario seemed exigent to me as she could have tossed or wiped the phone and we already saw her using the FORE IT consultant to copy and alter her phone etc.

I don't see why Judge R did what he did on the MT cell phone. Do you? Judge R was fixated on the search warrant issue and not on exigent circumstances that to me at least seemed paramount. I still can't get over that that CSP let MT and FD drive themselves to Litchfield. They could have gotten in their car and simply been in Pennsylvania before LE knew where they were imo. Alot of privilege I think in how they both were treated and yet we see Defence Counsel screaming about MT being taken for an interview at midnight etc. Just don't get anything about how that 4Jx raid was handled.

It just seems like LE could have bagged the phone and gotten a search warrant after the fact. I guess perhaps the issue was that the officer on site didn't check the search warrant in place to make sure what they did was ok and maybe this was the issue that Judge R found wrong? IDK, but I honestly want to buy a box of Faraday bags and send it to CSP Headquarters as I don't know why they don't use them more?

MOO

TSH92 · Feb 16, 2024

Today’s evidence was excellent. I’m surprised we haven’t heard anything about data, internet searches, messages, etc. from the many electronic devices seized at 4JC or that computer backup that was done. There still hasn’t been much evidence about planning prior to the murder other than moving the phone around that morning. I hope more is still coming in around that.

afitzy · Feb 16, 2024

lucegirl said:
sniped for focus on question: "And I think part of whatever went down was an order not to address the contempt issue and/or anything related to the interim steps taken by the court to mitigate the D’s willful exposure of the report."

I'm confused what you are saying here.

When you say 'order' here to whom are you referring?

Do you think Judge R was told to handle things in Court the way he did today (whole thing makes little sense to me without taking the computer to protect the report) by a higher authority in the CT Judiciary? Or, did you mean Judge R made the decision?

Why also not address D's 'wilful exposure of the report' too or at least put it on the record outside of the Jury presence. I thought Judge R was simply sweeping more Defence atty misconduct under the rug. Judge R didn't note the very obvious issue about Ds wilful exposure to the report either when he made his statement for the record. Do you think someone is trying to protect the Defence attorneys who clearly have been quite bold imo in flaunting the rules of Court? Atty Felson today was also a bit snippy with Judge R until he told her quite quickly, "that's enough". Why would Defence Atty want to antagonise a Judge by being rude or patronising which imo was what Atty Felson was doing at the time with her word salad answer to a very clear and direct question by Judge R too? Seems bold to me and would only be done if you were somehow protected or immune from repercussions. IDK, her behaviour on Atty Meehan cross I found reprehensible and I thought Judge R was kind with his 'crossing double yellow line' comment as I've seen Judges lay out attorneys for less!

If you get a chance take a look at Defence Atty Hussey interview on WSFB that I posted earlier. He speaks about the trial every Friday and has a very pro defence POV but he today made a very clear statement about the behaviour of Defence counsels in this case and I found that interesting as that is simply 'not done' in CT. So, as a layperson the only thing I could conclude was that for an atty to say another atty is colouring outside the lines and say it on TV meant that their behaviour was even worse that what I felt its been as a layperson that knows nothing! Curious what you think!

MOO

afitzy · Feb 16, 2024

TSH92 said:
Today’s evidence was excellent. I’m surprised we haven’t heard anything about data, internet searches, messages, etc. from the many electronic devices seized at 4JC or that computer backup that was done. There still hasn’t been much evidence about planning prior to the murder other than moving the phone around that morning. I hope more is still coming in around that.

Its coming together for the State!

Seeing the "Car Parade" going back and forth between 80MS and 4JX was brilliant.

But, why no electronic data on the White Cherokee?

We still have gaps in Defendant timeline and if they know she had the Cherokee all day then why not track it all day?

Still baffling about States choices on conspiracy related issues for Defendant.

We shall see how they put a bow on it all.

Did anyone get the sense today that KM won't been seen in Court?

MOO

CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #64

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Verified Attorney

Well-Known Member

Trying to be a good human.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Verified Attorney

Verified Attorney

Trying to be a good human.

MOO...IMO

MOO...IMO

Former Member

Former Member

Verified Attorney

Former Member

Active Member

Former Member

Former Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics

CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 ARRESTS #64