Cloudydiamond
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,073
- Reaction score
- 10,256
Yes, quite a story.
GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #70
- Thread starter doodles1211
- Start date
- Status
Cloudydiamond
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,073
- Reaction score
- 10,256
Are they holding on to the cash for a highly unlikely appeal bond? Or is the well actually dry?
Michelle Troconis seeks financial help, public defender
Michelle Troconis seeks financial help, public defender
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 13,137
- Reaction score
- 223,142
So, let me guess, she'll go for ineffective counsel as grounds, but the Judge locked that down, gave the defense all kinds of understanding latitude. For instance, you're OVER the double yellow line but carry on..
Maybe her family is saving all their nickels to cover bond they think she can get but can't.
What a shame, it appears that MT has run out of privileges and entitlements.
I bet she's doing just fine communicating in English in prison too. No interpreters need apply.
That terrible, horrible, very bad sandwich she and Fotis picked up in Hartford? What she wouldn't give now to have a sandwich that good, I'll bet.
What's the status of lattes in gen pop?
Maybe her family is saving all their nickels to cover bond they think she can get but can't.
What a shame, it appears that MT has run out of privileges and entitlements.
I bet she's doing just fine communicating in English in prison too. No interpreters need apply.
That terrible, horrible, very bad sandwich she and Fotis picked up in Hartford? What she wouldn't give now to have a sandwich that good, I'll bet.
What's the status of lattes in gen pop?
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 42,290
- Reaction score
- 438,507
IMO, there will be no bond awaiting an appeal if there's not a great argument the appeal effort will be successful.
So if MT is thinking a PD for this important effort, maybe she was told her chances for appeal are not so great.
Also, I think once you are denied bond (such as here, at sentencing), you start all over with your surety and with a brand new bond, and the defendant is responsible for another bond fee/premium, plus collateral.
I don't recall exactly what JLS was promoting at sentencing, and about where MT would reside while waiting on an appeal.
I'm sorry, I just can't with this selfish, arrogant beast and her sense of entitlement, and how her family owes her an expensive bond, a legal defense, financial support while on house arrest, if applicable,....
And even if MT granted a new trial, I see her convicted a second time. MOO
This CT link is dated but interesting about States, and which their bond fees are regulated by the State.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0215.htm
LosAngeles
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2019
- Messages
- 513
- Reaction score
- 6,780
Wow…a PD? That’s something. I’m sure her parents said “we just spent 1M on your defense and lost, so we aren’t willing to risk another 1M in this corrupt USA legal system (even though we know you are absolutely innocent).” Maybe they think they have a better chance @ appeal with a public defender (no offense to PD) and it’s free! I'm wondering why all of those people who showed up to show their love and support do not contribute to her legal defense fund?
Just saw that State filed an appeal to Judge Randolph ruling:
Docket Number:
"Trial Court's vacating of defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence".
Glad to see this as if reversed could add 5 years to the "Duchess of York" sentence!
No full presentation yet from the State as all that was filed was a basic form.
Guess this could also be why MT is seeking 'Public Defender' courtesy of the sorry highly overtaxed citizens of CT as this could be an expensive proposition to defend, especially if the State keeps going to the CT Supreme Court.
I keep looking for some Civil Court filing against MT from GF but as of yet nothing has appeared. Just keep thinking about how Atty Bowman got MT out of testifying in the Civil Case filed by GF against FD and how it had to have irked Atty Weinstein greatly that she was able to wiggle out of testifying there when it was quite clear imo that she knew virtually everything there was to know about FD and the operations of FORE. I wonder if possibly they are waiting for the Appeals to settle before proceeding? All I can think about is how the entire friends/family contingent must feel about the 14.5 yrs and even if she gets 1/2 a year for a conviction on contempt that really has to sting imo. If the State prevails on the recent appeal mentioned above then that could potentially add 5 years to the 14.5 yrs from Judge Randolph so I guess we shall simply have to wait and see how the appeals process shakes out.
MOO
Docket Number:
| FSTCR200241178T |
http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=6yiySkfKmLvf4K93901wZg%3d%3d
"Trial Court's vacating of defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence".
Glad to see this as if reversed could add 5 years to the "Duchess of York" sentence!
No full presentation yet from the State as all that was filed was a basic form.
Guess this could also be why MT is seeking 'Public Defender' courtesy of the sorry highly overtaxed citizens of CT as this could be an expensive proposition to defend, especially if the State keeps going to the CT Supreme Court.
I keep looking for some Civil Court filing against MT from GF but as of yet nothing has appeared. Just keep thinking about how Atty Bowman got MT out of testifying in the Civil Case filed by GF against FD and how it had to have irked Atty Weinstein greatly that she was able to wiggle out of testifying there when it was quite clear imo that she knew virtually everything there was to know about FD and the operations of FORE. I wonder if possibly they are waiting for the Appeals to settle before proceeding? All I can think about is how the entire friends/family contingent must feel about the 14.5 yrs and even if she gets 1/2 a year for a conviction on contempt that really has to sting imo. If the State prevails on the recent appeal mentioned above then that could potentially add 5 years to the 14.5 yrs from Judge Randolph so I guess we shall simply have to wait and see how the appeals process shakes out.
MOO
Last edited:
Just catching up on State response to MT/Horn appeal request and it looks like that they are simply saying, "NOPE".....Bueno!
Funny also that State sees 'no need' for oral argument and prefers instead that the Court rule on the papers. Perhaps they have had enough of 'Horn Horning' and are trying to avoid having to spend a day in Court on a matter that seems simple on its face? IDK, but even though taxpayers have to pay the public servants to defend the MT appeal, I'm almost wishing that oral arguments and the whole enchilada of Court presentation is required as MT (Mama Troconis) will be billed for it. But, seems like the financial well is drained at the moment so now the family grift is to shift the cost of defending the "Duchess of York" to the sorry (and poor) citizens of CT.
Quote from States' Brief [BBM}:
"This Court should deny the defendant’s petition and uphold thetrial court’s bail determination for two primary reasons. First, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the trial court reasonably exercised its discretion, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-63f, in denying her request for an appeal bond after considering and rejecting her argument that the court should set an appellate bond in the amount of $2 million with special conditions, including that she remain in Connecticut during the pendency of the appeal. By denying the defendant’s request for an appellate bond with special conditions, the trial court necessarily found that no amount of bail could reasonably assure her appearance in court. Second, the trial court’s discretionary decision was reasonable based on two facts, of which the trial court was well aware and presumably took into account in denying an appeal bond: (1) the defendant stands convicted of five felonies, including conspiracy to commit murder, which the court reasonably could have viewed as a serious and violent offense; and (2) the court imposed a total effective sentence of 20 years of incarceration, executions uspended after 14 and 1⁄2 years, a significant amount of jail time that increases the risk of flight during the pendency of the defendant’s appeal".
"Alternatively, if this Court grants the petition and remands the case to the trial court for a new bail hearing, it should deny the defendant’s request to direct the trial court to apply Pan in deciding whether to set an appellate bond for two reasons. First, the defendant waived any claim that Pan applies to post conviction bail determinations by failing to raise it below. Second, even if the claim was not waived, the standards set forth by our Supreme Court in Pan plainly apply to pretrial bail determinations, not post conviction bail determinations where, as here, all of the facts bearing on whether to grant an appeal bond already have been developed throughout the trial and sentencing proceedings".
Here is link to that document:
Funny also that State sees 'no need' for oral argument and prefers instead that the Court rule on the papers. Perhaps they have had enough of 'Horn Horning' and are trying to avoid having to spend a day in Court on a matter that seems simple on its face? IDK, but even though taxpayers have to pay the public servants to defend the MT appeal, I'm almost wishing that oral arguments and the whole enchilada of Court presentation is required as MT (Mama Troconis) will be billed for it. But, seems like the financial well is drained at the moment so now the family grift is to shift the cost of defending the "Duchess of York" to the sorry (and poor) citizens of CT.
Quote from States' Brief [BBM}:
"This Court should deny the defendant’s petition and uphold thetrial court’s bail determination for two primary reasons. First, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the trial court reasonably exercised its discretion, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-63f, in denying her request for an appeal bond after considering and rejecting her argument that the court should set an appellate bond in the amount of $2 million with special conditions, including that she remain in Connecticut during the pendency of the appeal. By denying the defendant’s request for an appellate bond with special conditions, the trial court necessarily found that no amount of bail could reasonably assure her appearance in court. Second, the trial court’s discretionary decision was reasonable based on two facts, of which the trial court was well aware and presumably took into account in denying an appeal bond: (1) the defendant stands convicted of five felonies, including conspiracy to commit murder, which the court reasonably could have viewed as a serious and violent offense; and (2) the court imposed a total effective sentence of 20 years of incarceration, executions uspended after 14 and 1⁄2 years, a significant amount of jail time that increases the risk of flight during the pendency of the defendant’s appeal".
"Alternatively, if this Court grants the petition and remands the case to the trial court for a new bail hearing, it should deny the defendant’s request to direct the trial court to apply Pan in deciding whether to set an appellate bond for two reasons. First, the defendant waived any claim that Pan applies to post conviction bail determinations by failing to raise it below. Second, even if the claim was not waived, the standards set forth by our Supreme Court in Pan plainly apply to pretrial bail determinations, not post conviction bail determinations where, as here, all of the facts bearing on whether to grant an appeal bond already have been developed throughout the trial and sentencing proceedings".
Here is link to that document:
Last edited:
@Seattle1, I'm with you on quite simply having had enough of the entitlement from the "Duchess of York". I also wish her family would simply find a park bench and "SIT DOWN".
But, I do think that with the types of claims she and her family have made about the entire trial experience and process which they have been proclaiming to the Press (all ridiculous imo as others here have pointed out), that letting this process of appeal play out makes sense simply from a process standpoint to make it clear to the delusional Convicted Felon and her family that the higher Courts have looked at the matter and simply don't agree.
I just did a quick read of the Horn 'Cut and Paste' appeal document but what I'm baffled by is how even after filing his appeal document that he continues to reference other appealable matters which not unsurprisingly he chooses not to name (this is a long and imo overused tactic of Horn). Mind blowing as it seems like in "Horns World" its a never ending gravy train that now sadly has come to an end as the money train has left the station? Or not? IDK.
What other games could be afoot from Mama Troconis?
Does anyone know if MT is approved for having a PD whether it would be possible for her to retain her present Counsel of "Horn" and "Mini Horn"? Is this part of the grift for Horn that he can continue virtually endlessly with the appeals and instead just get paid by the State of CT?
Horn at Trial (right before Judge Randolph cut him off at his knees) was asking for a $2 million bond pending appeal and for MT residing in CT until the appeals are heard and decided. He said that this was 'all' the family could afford. Per usual he was short on details about how this bond would play out but he made it sound as if it would be a continuation of the then existing bond and not a new bond but I'm not sure he knew what he was asking for in terms of specifics at that point. I'm also not sure that using the prior bond would be possible at this point but honestly the fine points of these bonds is a bit confusing.
MOO
Last edited:
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 42,290
- Reaction score
- 438,507
I'm glad you recalled this because it's true -- Randolph did cut him off and denied bond-- reminding him that release pending appeal is NOT a constitutional right. This is just more evidence that this denial wasn't after consideration because he knew where JLS was going, and in CT it's the Courts discretion, and he had heard enough.
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 42,290
- Reaction score
- 438,507
I really hoped the State would do this because it doesn't follow that for as long as this case was in the Court, and no changes to the charges, that it wasn't challenged until the eve of MT's conviction. JMO
Jmoose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 7,112
- Reaction score
- 54,593
I love that you called her a beast.
Jmoose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 7,112
- Reaction score
- 54,593
That Fundly account is still up, but not particularly active
Diddian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2020
- Messages
- 3,009
- Reaction score
- 50,072
“People, family, and friends from all over the world…”
“This moment set an example for the world…”
Grandiose much?
Most of those “friends” who spoke on MT’s behalf prior to her sentencing were people she met AFTER the murder, when she joined a church, where she participated in charitable activities to improve her apparent reputation. A pastor and church ladies - nice and well-intentioned people, vulnerable to being misused by charlatans because they are inclined to blinding themselves to the faults of those they encounter because they are looking only for the good.
MT’s family need to stop abusing this country and what it has to offer and get over themselves. MT is where she belongs. Hopefully, while there and away from her enabling and seemingly entitlement-addicted family, she will learn how to get along in the world fairly and independently.
Jmoose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 7,112
- Reaction score
- 54,593
I know-delusions of grandeur, is what I thought when I read it.
Tink56
MOO...IMO
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,651
- Reaction score
- 25,302
The request for a "public defender" makes me suspicious.
Pernickety is the expert on the strange PD's in CT including Pattis. Is there any possibility, if the MT is deemed unable to pay for counsel, the state would pay JS or someone like NP to represent her?
Obviously, I have trouble trusting the CT system...and don't think I can endure hearing either NP or JS in another trial.
@Mysticeilis, glad you posted this case as imo it needs BROAD VISIBILITY as there is a LONG AND SAD history in CT of covering up the misdeeds of LE (and public officials for that matter - corruption is a huge issue in general imo in CT).
The spousal support is sadly so often the part of the vicious cycle of DV and so I sadly just accept it as part of the process unfortunately. I do hope to see DV charges brought but my guess is that given the person involved and the way the 'reposting press' is pussy footing around the story, I'm not at all encouraged.
What also is so horrible about the way the 'non press' covers these stories is that EVEN WHEN DV pictures and reporting spouses exist in stories that they are so afraid of litigation that they don't call DV for what it is.
I do pray that the spouse seeks counseling both for herself and any children living in the household. DV is oftentimes a process of escalation and I also pray that it doesn't explode in this case.
This story is on my radar and I will see what happens.
MO
Yes, what you describe is what I fear will happen. Troconis crew is pleading poverty and will attempt to get State to pay for JS. Pattis iirc (@pernickety would know best here) was on the list to qualify as a public defender as he has played this role many times in the past). IDK if Horn is on the list or even if he cares to be (some atty's dont want this role as it locks them in to potentially long cases at lower pay then they are used to getting).The request for a "public defender" makes me suspicious.
Pernickety is the expert on the strange PD's in CT including Pattis. Is there any possibility, if the MT is deemed unable to pay for counsel, the state would pay JS or someone like NP to represent her?
Obviously, I have trouble trusting the CT system...and don't think I can endure hearing either NP or JS in another trial.
Will have to watch how this all plays out.
I do though HOPE that the State THROUGHLY investigates MT finances going back as long as possible to see what she has in terms of assets and liquidity. My guess is that anything she had is long been gifted to her daughter or put into a trust etc. I does enrage me to have to pay for her legal defence if she had the means to pay it and she simply gave her assets and cash to her daughter!
Grifters are gonna grift I guess but I hope that the State investigates this matter completely.
MOO
If I were a psychology professor and asked a class in an exam to 'write a paragraph in the voice of a narcissist' and this is the paragraph or two that I got I think this student would be given a grade of A!
No responsibility, no acknowledgment of any role in anything that happened, convenient grasp of the facts and evidence of the case, criticizing the 'real victims' in a game of victim shaming, dismissal of legal process and zero respect for the Judge AND JURY.
The characterization though of the 'real victims' as holding 'anger and revenge' is what took this from a "B GRADE" to an "A GRADE" test paper! Narcs always have to attack those that are calling out their behaviour! Ripping off the mask on their behaviour is always a source of huge anger and so this paragraph hits out at the 'real victims' that did exactly this and did it with deep feeling and consideration imo. Narc simply hate the truth and so do what is happening here (and what we have been seeing now for 5 years) is denial of the truth.
Unreal. Not unexpected as this is what has been going on for now 5 years from MT and her family. But, to see Victims impact statements which are deeply personal and a valuable and respected part of the US system of Justice impugned in such a manner by such profoundly ignorant and angry people is quite simply beyond comprehension at this point of the game where MT was resoundingly convicted by a Jury of her 'peers'.
MOO
Jmoose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 7,112
- Reaction score
- 54,593
that update in their fundraiser sounds like Mami wrote it-it’s familiar to me. Those people are outrageous! Of course they are angry-their loved one is dead; MeeChee isn’t! How is it possible that they actually think their trouble comes anywhere near to that of the Farber family’s?? The worst part about it is that they actually mean it-they really do think that Jennifer’s loss of life is nothing-that their loss of time with MeeChee is far worse than anything endure by Gloria, Melissa or the children.
- Status