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

[afitzy]

Jurors could decide as early as next week the fate of the woman accused of helping cover up the murder of Connecticut mom Jennifer Dulos, the Stamford Advocate reports.

On Friday, 49-year-old Michelle Troconis chose not to testify in her trial on charges of murder conspiracy, evidence tampering and hindering prosecution. The defense subsequently rested its case, and prosecutors also opted not to present a rebuttal case

“The science as we are presenting here, there is an alternative narrative theory to what the prosecution is trying to claim,” Schoenhorn said outside the courtroom, according to NBC Connecticut.

Jennifer Dulos: Woman Accused of Helping Boyfriend Kill, Cover Up Wife’s Murder Refuses to Testify

Jurors could decide as early as next week the fate of the woman accused of helping cover up the murder of Connecticut mom Jennifer Dulos, the Stamford Advocate reports. On Friday, 49-year-old Michelle Troconis chose not to testify in her trial on charges of murder conspiracy, evidence tampering...

www.crimeonline.com

“The science as we are presenting here, there is an alternative narrative theory to what the prosecution is trying to claim,” Schoenhorn said outside the courtroom, according to NBC Connecticut.

Jennifer Dulos: Woman Accused of Helping Boyfriend Kill, Cover Up Wife’s Murder Refuses to Testify​

Jurors could decide as early as next week the fate of the woman accused of helping cover up the murder of Connecticut mom Jennifer Dulos, the Stamford Advocate reports. On Friday, 49-year-old Michelle Troconis chose not to testify in her trial on charges of murder conspiracy, evidence tampering...

www.crimeonline.com

Its reading quotes from Schoenhorn like this one that have me wishing again for a 'gag' order.

But, what is more likely imo is the following given the long trip both ways between Farmington and Stamford:






MOO

 

[Eli9]

It could have also been a recent acquisition too by MT. She has a phone and could have simply taken pictures of pages that Audrey Felson claimed to have (4 pages if I recall). OR, she or mama A could have lifted and copied the report from Schoenhorn in his office as god knows if he had any security or he happened to 'conveniently' leave the office when Mama T and MT were there? OR, MT could have gotten the report ages ago from 4JX or even Pattis (via FD).

Where I am a bit mind blown on the discredited report and MT was going back to her 'story' about the FD/MT visit to the psychologist when she claimed she felt 'unsafe' and wanted to learn more so she would be 'safe' from JF as MT was going to be in the lives of FD an the Dulos children for years etc. Or did FD just give MT a bunch of psycho babble and she went to town researching with mama Troconis? I don't buy it. I simply see FD and MT bonding over reading the discredited report and FD also using it to manipulate MT into believing his lies about the situation in Family Court being favourable (it wasn't as we all know). Its tough because we simply have a bunch of liars who seem to lie to each other all the time so I'm not sure how the investigator in the perjury case will sort this all out by the hearing date. All I can say to them is good luck and GOD BLESS!

How do you come up with what she claimed were 67 questions for FD and the good doctor without the report? Hate to say it but I think that report has been kicking around between FD, MT and mama A. MT and Mama A were all over the divorce proceedings. Frankly, I'd wished we had heard from the psychologist that MT took her 67 questions to but that wouldn't have been possible given the chess game on the report unfortunately.

Anyway, I think Judge Heller has to enter the fray on the issue of the report and how it made its way to MT. Judge Heller did her investigation on the report and gave the hook to Atty Mike Rose and would have given hook to GAL Mike Meehan but for JF being murdered (JF had a motion pending to dismiss GAL Meehan at the time of her death).

MOO

All possible IMO. I just speculate that she kept it as a pdf file and retrieved it from her cloud. I hope at some point we get to the bottom of it because that report is never going away. It will be brought up again and again in appeals yet to come. Sick.

 

[Nieves]

I'm going to write down some ideas, based on personal opinions.

A man, a murderer, who valued his Greek ancestry, which is why he chooses beautiful Greek names for his five children, also produces a great tragedy, not only with the end of the life of the beautiful person, Jennifer, but in the life of the children who must live with the idea that their father has murdered their mother.

Obviously, the murderer did not plan to transcend as the creator of a great tragedy. We can observe that now. That this is the plot of a Greek tragedy.

The motives of the murderer and his assistants were much more material (than transforming their actions into the plot of a horrible and real tragedy): The money. But to proceed as they have done, they needed personal characteristics beyond the material: hatred, anger, revenge, evil, perversion, intelligence, lies, coldness...

I believe that when the murderer's access to Jennifer's and her family's money begins to be closed, there is no other way but to access the money by trying to remove Jennifer due to accusations of mental insanity, and when this is not achieved, it is planned the murder, in order to access the funds provided by the grandparents, for the 5 minors.

And almost 5 years we have waited for the trial.

 

[Diddian]

Did anyone notice that Petu's testimony moved the timeline during which MT's alibi could be evidenced (by others or by appearance on store surveillance and photo with store robot) as much as an hour later than represented in the AA? And also conflicts with times represented in the cellphone and activity logs "alibi scripts aka timelines" MT wrote up.

Petu testified that she told MT she was available to meet to pay MT for some rugs MT had sold her at around 10:45, but that she was only available for a narrow time frame as she was still packing to leave town for London that night. Then, Petu said that MT arrived and the time they were together was from around 11 to 12:00 (P testified 11, then 11:30, then 12:00).

MT's activity log indicates "went to Petu's shop to say bye" at 11 and indicates "went to waterski pond to ski but no one there to pull me" at 11:20. [The short time frame MT represented with Petu seems consistent with the time Petu testified she had told ME she had available.] MT's cellphone log indicates MT made an outgoing 38 second call at 11:52 ("spoke with Barbara about rugs didn't know where they were") and received an incoming 2 minute FaceTime from "Nicole" at 11:53.

It seems odd to me that someone who is only available for a narrow time frame as she is packing to leave town would then extend that to more than an hour past the time she said she'd be available and it seems suspicious to me when it also conflicts with what the defendant herself represented in written form (while using her cellphone to assist in memory). I don't know why, but it appeared that Petu was trying to widen the time for which she could account for MT's presence with her.

On Thursday, immediately before Petu entered the courtroom and took the witness chair for the first time, MT began crying. Then, Petu came in, approached and sat in the witness chair, then - presumably at defense counsel's urging - got out of the chair and left the courtroom (to return and testify the next day, after the "cognition and language" expert had testified).

Why was MT crying just before Petu came in on Thursday? Was Petu refusing to testify to something the defense wanted her to? Was she unwilling to say something under oath that the defense wanted her to? If so, was her mind changed by the next day, or was the issue dropped?

When combined with the rest of the testimony from that witness (does not trust police; would not speak with LE without a subpoena; and despite claiming to have evidence that acquits her friend of involvement, withholding that information from LE), as well as the odd behavior of MT that seemed associated with that witness the previous day, I do not find the witness credible and am suspicious of the motivations behind those parts of her testimony that conflict with other evidence in the case.

 

[Catz]

I thought Petu behavior and comment to the media outside after court was odd. Im sorry I dont have a clip of it to include in my post.
Edited to add. She didnt walk next to MT who was her BFF, she stayed to the far left side, then butted in to say MT was innocent, then promptly walked off to the other side. It didnt seem like she was honestly supporting MT. It was odd.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Did anyone notice that Petu's testimony moved the timeline during which MT's alibi could be evidenced (by others or by appearance on store surveillance and photo with store robot) as much as an hour later than represented in the AA? And also conflicts with times represented in the cellphone and activity logs "alibi scripts aka timelines" MT wrote up.

Petu testified that she told MT she was available to meet to pay MT for some rugs MT had sold her at around 10:45, but that she was only available for a narrow time frame as she was still packing to leave town for London that night. Then, Petu said that MT arrived and the time they were together was from around 11 to 12:00 (P testified 11, then 11:30, then 12:00).

MT's activity log indicates "went to Petu's shop to say bye" at 11 and indicates "went to waterski pond to ski but no one there to pull me" at 11:20. [The short time frame MT represented with Petu seems consistent with the time Petu testified she had told ME she had available.] MT's cellphone log indicates MT made an outgoing 38 second call at 11:52 ("spoke with Barbara about rugs didn't know where they were") and received an incoming 2 minute FaceTime from "Nicole" at 11:53.

It seems odd to me that someone who is only available for a narrow time frame as she is packing to leave town would then extend that to more than an hour past the time she said she'd be available and it seems suspicious to me when it also conflicts with what the defendant herself represented in written form (while using her cellphone to assist in memory). I don't know why, but it appeared that Petu was trying to widen the time for which she could account for MT's presence with her.

On Thursday, immediately before Petu entered the courtroom and took the witness chair for the first time, MT began crying. Then, Petu came in, approached and sat in the witness chair, then - presumably at defense counsel's urging - got out of the chair and left the courtroom (to return and testify the next day, after the "cognition and language" expert had testified).

Why was MT crying just before Petu came in on Thursday? Was Petu refusing to testify to something the defense wanted her to? Was she unwilling to say something under oath that the defense wanted her to? If so, was her mind changed by the next day, or was the issue dropped?

When combined with the rest of the testimony from that witness (does not trust police; would not speak with LE without a subpoena; and despite claiming to have evidence that acquits her friend of involvement, withholding that information from LE), as well as the odd behavior of MT that seemed associated with that witness the previous day, I do not find the witness credible and am suspicious of the motivations behind those parts of her testimony that conflict with other evidence in the case.

Good catch on the timing.

Crying a mystery because only other time she cried was seeing herself on her knees, begging was it Bowman end of first interview ? She prob was hoping it would have been cut-off the video but seeing it in court probably brought her back to the moment. It was not an Innocent look, more like begging for mercy.
Begging on knees was such a desperate and embarrassing thing to do … when do adults ever get on actual knees to beg a lawyer (in public, in Connecticut)?

What was interesting was that Petu, didn’t seem to understand MT charges and case, and why her testimony about MT being at her shop wasn’t key to MT innocence. The phone data far more reliable than Petu. Can only conclude that Petu thinks MT being charged with BEING in New Canaan at 10:45, which of course, isn’t part of this case.

 

[pernickety]

I'm going to write down some ideas, based on personal opinions.

A man, a murderer, who valued his Greek ancestry, which is why he chooses beautiful Greek names for his five children, also produces a great tragedy, not only with the end of the life of the beautiful person, Jennifer, but in the life of the children who must live with the idea that their father has murdered their mother.

Obviously, the murderer did not plan to transcend as the creator of a great tragedy. We can observe that now. That this is the plot of a Greek tragedy.

The motives of the murderer and his assistants were much more material (than transforming their actions into the plot of a horrible and real tragedy): The money. But to proceed as they have done, they needed personal characteristics beyond the material: hatred, anger, revenge, evil, perversion, intelligence, lies, coldness...

I believe that when the murderer's access to Jennifer's and her family's money begins to be closed, there is no other way but to access the money by trying to remove Jennifer due to accusations of mental insanity, and when this is not achieved, it is planned the murder, in order to access the funds provided by the grandparents, for the 5 minors.

And almost 5 years we have waited for the trial.

You are an excellent "Greek chorus."

 

[afitzy]

Did anyone notice that Petu's testimony moved the timeline during which MT's alibi could be evidenced (by others or by appearance on store surveillance and photo with store robot) as much as an hour later than represented in the AA? And also conflicts with times represented in the cellphone and activity logs "alibi scripts aka timelines" MT wrote up.

Petu testified that she told MT she was available to meet to pay MT for some rugs MT had sold her at around 10:45, but that she was only available for a narrow time frame as she was still packing to leave town for London that night. Then, Petu said that MT arrived and the time they were together was from around 11 to 12:00 (P testified 11, then 11:30, then 12:00).

MT's activity log indicates "went to Petu's shop to say bye" at 11 and indicates "went to waterski pond to ski but no one there to pull me" at 11:20. [The short time frame MT represented with Petu seems consistent with the time Petu testified she had told ME she had available.] MT's cellphone log indicates MT made an outgoing 38 second call at 11:52 ("spoke with Barbara about rugs didn't know where they were") and received an incoming 2 minute FaceTime from "Nicole" at 11:53.

It seems odd to me that someone who is only available for a narrow time frame as she is packing to leave town would then extend that to more than an hour past the time she said she'd be available and it seems suspicious to me when it also conflicts with what the defendant herself represented in written form (while using her cellphone to assist in memory). I don't know why, but it appeared that Petu was trying to widen the time for which she could account for MT's presence with her.

On Thursday, immediately before Petu entered the courtroom and took the witness chair for the first time, MT began crying. Then, Petu came in, approached and sat in the witness chair, then - presumably at defense counsel's urging - got out of the chair and left the courtroom (to return and testify the next day, after the "cognition and language" expert had testified).

Why was MT crying just before Petu came in on Thursday? Was Petu refusing to testify to something the defense wanted her to? Was she unwilling to say something under oath that the defense wanted her to? If so, was her mind changed by the next day, or was the issue dropped?

When combined with the rest of the testimony from that witness (does not trust police; would not speak with LE without a subpoena; and despite claiming to have evidence that acquits her friend of involvement, withholding that information from LE), as well as the odd behavior of MT that seemed associated with that witness the previous day, I do not find the witness credible and am suspicious of the motivations behind those parts of her testimony that conflict with other evidence in the case.

Yep, saw that and also saw that a she fumbled the ball in an obvious way doing it too. I watched it again as my gut was uncomfortable watching it the first time. The second watching convinced me she simply wasn't credible and that her narrative was coached and false and obviously so with a second viewing. Gotta love attorneys coaching that falls flat via over manipulation but its par for the course imo with the putz and putz-ette. Also as others here have said, when you pull apart what Petu was saying it simply makes no sense to sit on your hands if you have information that could 'help' your friend. But, the gig was up imo totally when she hit the steps with the Troconis Crew and iirc said, "I've waited 5 years to be here". My guess is she gets paid and a cameo on whatever news show the Troconis Crew land on post trial.

Crying BS on this and I think Atty Manning tried to work around this 'adjustment' to the timeline. The jury will imo see this manipulation as its pretty clear where the gaps in MT were.

Just seemed clearly that the extent of coaching done on Petu with a narrative she didn't feel comfortable delivering imo will make it clear to see for the jury.

My guess is that Petu was not first choice for her role as the 'closing act' and that it was originally was to have been Mama T. But, when Mama T put herself into the cross hairs of the Contempt Computerscreen-gate, then she had to exit stage left. Having listened to Mama T in pretrial I'm not sure she would have resonated with the jury either as she is another one imo steeped in the entitlement that the Troconis Crew wear like bad perfume.

Juries can sue out 'fakes/phonies/frauds' so I think they will see Petu but better yet, her wonderful comment about having the same 'morals' as MT will no doubt ring the BIG RED BELL for the jurors too. Funny thing about trying to be too clever ime, it usually backfires and in this case with Petu it was the impression on the jury that they leave with as they head into deliberations.

I'm sure Defence will try to spin this Petu testimony in closing but there is no escaping first impressions imo.

MOO

 

[nodamselindistress]

Assuming most have read the 2020 Vanity Fair article, but just in case somebody missed it and is interested, this gives a great feel for what Jennifer was really all about. I cried.

rom the Magazine
November 2020 Issue

Fates and Furies​

When Jennifer Farber disappeared in 2019, suspicion immediately centered on her handsome and manipulative husband, Fotis Dulos, and press coverage almost exclusively painted her as a missing suburban mom. But reducing the 50-year-old’s life to a familiar tabloid trope missed so much of her story.

Jennifer Farber, Fotis Dulos, and the True Scope of a Tragedy

When the story of a Fairfield County woman’s disappearance went national in 2019, press coverage almost exclusively painted her as a missing mom. But reducing the 50-year-old’s life to a familiar tabloid trope missed so much of her story.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[afitzy]

Did anyone listening to the Petu testimony yesterday understand her 'trip' with many details via UBER from Hartford area to Boston Logan for what seemed to be a trip with a final destination of London?

Any locals know how commonly folks would use Logan (115 miles away) vs Hartford (15 miles away) and then get there via UBER?

Has anyone ever taken a car service and had their driver STOP to put oil in the car?

When was the last time anyone here has arrived for an international flight with 1.5 hrs to spare and gotten on the flight at a major city large airport?

Can anyone make sense of the Petu story as imo it simply reminded me of the 8+ hrs of MT LE Interviews with alot of detail thrown in.

Curious what folks think as this story is giving me flashbacks to the MT LE Interviews for some odd reason.....

MOO

 

[Megnut]

Did anyone listening to the Petu testimony yesterday understand her 'trip' with many details via UBER from Hartford area to Boston Logan for what seemed to be a trip with a final destination of London?

Any locals know how commonly folks would use Logan (115 miles away) vs Hartford (15 miles away) and then get there via UBER?

Has anyone ever taken a car service and had their driver STOP to put oil in the car?

When was the last time anyone here has arrived for an international flight with 1.5 hrs to spare and gotten on the flight at a major city large airport?

Can anyone make sense of the Petu story as imo it simply reminded me of the 8+ hrs of MT LE Interviews with alot of detail thrown in.

Curious what folks think as this story is giving me flashbacks to the MT LE Interviews for some odd reason.....

MOO

I accepted it at face value! I deserve the wet lashes.

If we unpack any of it:

MT overstayed her welcome, knowing her dear friend was planning to race out the door. MT planted her ruggy bum because she needed an alibi. Used her friend to do it.

It would seem MT could find no one at the Pond to pull her because she was parked at Petu's. Lying liar.

"Funny" story about Uber guy, oil change on the exchange, eeeerrrrrrrrrrmmmmm, way too many details.

The Defense witness told us sumpin about that.

Perhaps the inseparable friends who shared the same morals spoke to each other in their native language and that's why it's hard to remember what happened in English.

JMO

 

[citygirl]

Did anyone notice that Petu's testimony moved the timeline during which MT's alibi could be evidenced (by others or by appearance on store surveillance and photo with store robot) as much as an hour later than represented in the AA? And also conflicts with times represented in the cellphone and activity logs "alibi scripts aka timelines" MT wrote up.

Petu testified that she told MT she was available to meet to pay MT for some rugs MT had sold her at around 10:45, but that she was only available for a narrow time frame as she was still packing to leave town for London that night. Then, Petu said that MT arrived and the time they were together was from around 11 to 12:00 (P testified 11, then 11:30, then 12:00).

MT's activity log indicates "went to Petu's shop to say bye" at 11 and indicates "went to waterski pond to ski but no one there to pull me" at 11:20. [The short time frame MT represented with Petu seems consistent with the time Petu testified she had told ME she had available.] MT's cellphone log indicates MT made an outgoing 38 second call at 11:52 ("spoke with Barbara about rugs didn't know where they were") and received an incoming 2 minute FaceTime from "Nicole" at 11:53.

It seems odd to me that someone who is only available for a narrow time frame as she is packing to leave town would then extend that to more than an hour past the time she said she'd be available and it seems suspicious to me when it also conflicts with what the defendant herself represented in written form (while using her cellphone to assist in memory). I don't know why, but it appeared that Petu was trying to widen the time for which she could account for MT's presence with her.

On Thursday, immediately before Petu entered the courtroom and took the witness chair for the first time, MT began crying. Then, Petu came in, approached and sat in the witness chair, then - presumably at defense counsel's urging - got out of the chair and left the courtroom (to return and testify the next day, after the "cognition and language" expert had testified).

Why was MT crying just before Petu came in on Thursday? Was Petu refusing to testify to something the defense wanted her to? Was she unwilling to say something under oath that the defense wanted her to? If so, was her mind changed by the next day, or was the issue dropped?

When combined with the rest of the testimony from that witness (does not trust police; would not speak with LE without a subpoena; and despite claiming to have evidence that acquits her friend of involvement, withholding that information from LE), as well as the odd behavior of MT that seemed associated with that witness the previous day, I do not find the witness credible and am suspicious of the motivations behind those parts of her testimony that conflict with other evidence in the case.

I was confused why they have been able to speak after she was placed on the witness list.

 

[Tink56]

Sorry....off on a little tangent. I was wondering why we didn't hear where MT and Nicole were planning to go on May 25, since they still weren't allowed to be with the FD children without a supervisor. On May 25, MT was getting her hair done....FD was showing a house.

There was a text message from Dennis Puebla to Fotis presented in trial, but I can't find it. I believe it said...I'm using my memory...something like, "Have you spoken/okayed plans with Jennifer for this coming weekend?"

I would like to check the date and the time, and the content of the text message. Does anyone know where this appeared in the trial?
TIA...

 

[Bobbbbberson]

Did anyone listening to the Petu testimony yesterday understand her 'trip' with many details via UBER from Hartford area to Boston Logan for what seemed to be a trip with a final destination of London?

Any locals know how commonly folks would use Logan (115 miles away) vs Hartford (15 miles away) and then get there via UBER?

Has anyone ever taken a car service and had their driver STOP to put oil in the car?

When was the last time anyone here has arrived for an international flight with 1.5 hrs to spare and gotten on the flight at a major city large airport?

Can anyone make sense of the Petu story as imo it simply reminded me of the 8+ hrs of MT LE Interviews with alot of detail thrown in.

Curious what folks think as this story is giving me flashbacks to the MT LE Interviews for some odd reason.....

MOO

Hartford/Bradley airport is pretty limited. While an international airport they don’t offer nearly as many international options as Boston or NYC airports and typically at a higher price.

For an average CT resident who is flying out of NYC or Boston taking an Uber isn’t that strange since the cost and hassle of parking a car makes the cost about the same or close to an Uber (depending how long the trip is of course).

Bradley is also not in Hartford so depending on where in CT you are located the travel time to NYC/Boston vs Bradley could be negligible.

 

[Ruminations]

Hartford/Bradley airport is pretty limited. While an international airport they don’t offer nearly as many international options as Boston or NYC airports and typically at a higher price.

For an average CT resident who is flying out of NYC or Boston taking an Uber isn’t that strange since the cost and hassle of parking a car makes the cost about the same or close to an Uber (depending how long the trip is of course).

Bradley is also not in Hartford so depending on where in CT you are located the travel time to NYC/Boston vs Bradley could be negligible.

Petu seemed full of poopie, but if there are two elements of her story I believe. She took an Uber to Logan is one.

"That was me,"* who was in a rush that day, is the second. I believe that because Petu was doing Michelle a favor, giving her an alibi, but she had to catch a flight. But for inseparable friends... there are always a few minutes.

I think she preplanned making that point for linguistic reasons. And I can't for the life of me figure out why. But I believe it.

The reason I think it was preplanned is her wording. The exact quote on the stand, "That was me," I found that especially fluent for her obviously non-native English. It is a grammatical error so common in English that it has become more of an exception to the grammar rule than an error. But you don't get there by translating. If you translated that sentiment from Spanish, you would use "I," not "me."

That moment seemed very rehearsed to me. She couldn't wait to say she was the one who was hurrying that day. And she memorized it in English rather than translating that thought from Spanish.

But, of course, like all the defense witnesses, it added no substance to the defense. So what? What does that have to do with Michelle and her murdering activities? Petu confirmed she did her friend a favor of laying eyes on her on a very busy day when she could have gotten an earlier start to the airport.

Michelle is toast.

MOO.

 

[afitzy]

Hartford/Bradley airport is pretty limited. While an international airport they don’t offer nearly as many international options as Boston or NYC airports and typically at a higher price.

For an average CT resident who is flying out of NYC or Boston taking an Uber isn’t that strange since the cost and hassle of parking a car makes the cost about the same or close to an Uber (depending how long the trip is of course).

Bradley is also not in Hartford so depending on where in CT you are located the travel time to NYC/Boston vs Bradley could be negligible.

Thanks. I think Petu said she was in Avon. Seems closer to Bradley vs Logan. Idk, just seems odd with an international airport nearby. Folks in southern ct by default need nyc airports and I agree car service to airport is typical. But folks in southern ct don’t have a nearby international airport either as westchester is domestic or private. Very consfused about Petu story… perhaps
That is all it is?

These two ‘soul sisters’ have me quite confused.

Moo

 

[Nieves]

Yes, and perhaps that is part of the problem? MOO.

I was not suggesting they or any other individuals to be consulted need be in CT. And lawyers would know what they could or could not say. But generalities and guidance was what seemed to be helpful as part of the process. IMO the specific lawyer(s) need not be identified when obtaining guidance on lodging a complaint. MOO

Perhaps we could think of an erroneous “Espirit de Corps”, even though there are lawyers who deal with legal malpractice.

 

[Nieves]

You are an excellent "Greek chorus."

Thank you very much for the literary expression (also political, philosophical and historical in Greece) that you use referring to my publication!

 

[Diddian]

Yep, saw that and also saw that a she fumbled the ball in an obvious way doing it too. I watched it again as my gut was uncomfortable watching it the first time. The second watching convinced me she simply wasn't credible and that her narrative was coached and false and obviously so with a second viewing. Gotta love attorneys coaching that falls flat via over manipulation but its par for the course imo with the putz and putz-ette. Also as others here have said, when you pull apart what Petu was saying it simply makes no sense to sit on your hands if you have information that could 'help' your friend. But, the gig was up imo totally when she hit the steps with the Troconis Crew and iirc said, "I've waited 5 years to be here". My guess is she gets paid and a cameo on whatever news show the Troconis Crew land on post trial.

Crying BS on this and I think Atty Manning tried to work around this 'adjustment' to the timeline. The jury will imo see this manipulation as its pretty clear where the gaps in MT were.

Just seemed clearly that the extent of coaching done on Petu with a narrative she didn't feel comfortable delivering imo will make it clear to see for the jury.

My guess is that Petu was not first choice for her role as the 'closing act' and that it was originally was to have been Mama T. But, when Mama T put herself into the cross hairs of the Contempt Computerscreen-gate, then she had to exit stage left. Having listened to Mama T in pretrial I'm not sure she would have resonated with the jury either as she is another one imo steeped in the entitlement that the Troconis Crew wear like bad perfume.

Juries can sue out 'fakes/phonies/frauds' so I think they will see Petu but better yet, her wonderful comment about having the same 'morals' as MT will no doubt ring the BIG RED BELL for the jurors too. Funny thing about trying to be too clever ime, it usually backfires and in this case with Petu it was the impression on the jury that they leave with as they head into deliberations.

I'm sure Defence will try to spin this Petu testimony in closing but there is no escaping first impressions imo.

MOO

I think the computer-screen-gate incident was one of two things that kept MamaT off the stand. I think the other factor was when MT's cellphone records were allowed in (not the download of her cellphone or any info gleaned from that, as that was ruled inadmissible since no SW had been obtained prior to or immediately after seizure).

To this day, AFAIK, MT and gang have not identified which electronics belong to whom.

 

[Jmoose]

Good point about a shared drive. IMO she probably had it in the cloud and gave it to her atty's. I hope the contempt hearing is streamed and we learn the truth.

After some of the things that just slid in this case, I am not under any illusion that we’ll get that satisfaction, and it makes me very sad.