CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #63

[afitzy]

Interesting theory and would explain some of what hasn’t been adding up.

What is also quite interesting is that MT for whatever reason won't even mention the names of FD Greek friends and oddly imo almost seems afraid of them? One of the few things I feel like I can safely say about MT is that she has a strong self preservation ability and so if she is afraid of the Greeks then there is a valid reason for it (at least in her mind). Given that MT knew the Greeks in FD life and no doubt heard FD talk about them over the years perhaps MT has good reason to fear them. But, I found it fascinating that she wouldn't directly speak about them in the LE Interviews.

Given some of the shady things that no doubt happened with FORE finances and FD sister Rena over the years along with the Toot brother having zero hesitation to file a no doubt bogus mortgage claim against Sturbridge property to keep GF from getting any residual, I feel comfortable saying that FD surrounded himself with people that were very much like himself and it seems like the Greeks in this tragedy were no different regarding business ethics from FD imo.
MOO

 

[afitzy]

She handed in an American passport, and when it came to light that she also had a Venezuelan passport (expired), she handed that in. But not voluntarily. Not sure if she has any others, or would be willing to use one belonging to one of her sisters.

So agree. My guess is that it wouldn't be hard for anyone in the family to get her a new replacement Venezuelan passport. I also don't understand how she stayed in Argentina for 6 years I think without some official paperwork either. Nothing about MT and her legal status in Argentina made much sense to me ever. Perhaps her lover that owned the ski resort got her some kind of work permit and that is how she was able to stay in Argentina? IDK, but its never been explained by LE that I've heard and we have no press researching MT either so the Press don't know either. MOO

 

[lucegirl]

The defendant's charges are in regards to Jennifer's murder. Does the jury know that much? Or will they not be told her criminal charges until the trial ends and instructions to jury begin?

"49-year-old dual citizen of the United States and Venezuela, Troconis is charged in Connecticut with conspiracy to commit murder, tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution for her alleged role in Dulos' death."

Really good question. I am totally unfamiliar with a trial that doesn’t start with opening statements - to frame the evidentiary issues for the jury.

Does the State have to prove that a homicide in fact occurred to prosecute a defendant for “conspiracy to commit murder”. Well, maybe not in some circumstances. An act in furtherance of a conspiracy, that isn’t successful, (like attempted murder), is generally treated as if the crime was successful.

Thus far, the State’s conspiracy theory seems to be based on MT’s contemporaneous and after-the-fact participation (overt acts) alongside FD (dumping, moving cars around and cleaning) that she knew or should have known were in furtherance of a murder/homicide. I tried to find, and have not yet, whether in CT, legal proof of homicide in fact (a body) is an element of a “conspiracy to commit” murder charge where the alleged overt acts are committed after the murder. (This is a different question from whether the jury can rely on circumstantial evidence for the fact that a homicide occurred if proof of homicide is a required element for conspiracy).

Obviously, the Defense is using the supposation that it is the State’s burden of proof as to murder in fact; and, the inference that lack of ME testimony somehow takes that question of homicide away from the jury.

But the Judge, in granting the motion to exclude some of the ME testimony as hearsay, reasoned that the jury could reach its own conclusion as to homicide, based on the facts in evidence.

So my long-winded answers is - yes - I expect the Judge to provide very specific instructions around the elements of the charged crimes - similar to other rulings he has made based on it being within the purview of the jury, as trier of fact, to weigh.

 

[afitzy]

Really good question. I am totally unfamiliar with a trial that doesn’t start with opening statements - to frame the evidentiary issues for the jury.

Does the State have to prove that a homicide in fact occurred to prosecute a defendant for “conspiracy to commit murder”. Well, maybe not in some circumstances. An act in furtherance of a conspiracy, that isn’t successful, (like attempted murder), is generally treated as if the crime was successful.

Thus far, the State’s conspiracy theory seems to be based on MT’s contemporaneous and after-the-fact participation (overt acts) alongside FD (dumping, moving cars around and cleaning) that she knew or should have known were in furtherance of a murder/homicide. I tried to find, and have not yet, whether in CT, legal proof of homicide in fact (a body) is an element of a “conspiracy to commit” murder charge where the alleged overt acts are committed after the murder. (This is a different question from whether the jury can rely on circumstantial evidence for the fact that a homicide occurred if proof of homicide is a required element for conspiracy).

Obviously, the Defense is using the supposation that it is the State’s burden of proof as to murder in fact; and, the inference that lack of ME testimony somehow takes that question of homicide away from the jury.

But the Judge, in granting the motion to exclude some of the ME testimony as hearsay, reasoned that the jury could reach its own conclusion as to homicide, based on the facts in evidence.

So my long-winded answers is - yes - I expect the Judge to provide very specific instructions around the elements of the charged crimes - similar to other rulings he has made based on it being within the purview of the jury, as trier of fact, to weigh.

IDK @lucegirl if this might help you with CT specific info. I am not an attorney so I apologise in advance for any errors in below information but I believe the info to properly reflect what MT was charged with as it relates to the Conspiracy Charge in her AA.
----------------------------------------------------

For the Conspiracy Charge: MT is charged with violation of CT 53a-48 /53a-54a

CT.gov Penal Code Reference: https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/title_53a.htm

53a-54a reference:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_950.htm

2022 Connecticut General Statutes :: Title 53a - Penal Code :: Chapter 952 - Penal Code: Offenses :: Section 53a-48. - Conspiracy. Renunciation.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-48. (2022) - Conspiracy. Renunciation. from 2022 General Statutes of Connecticut

law.justia.com

AA to confirm charging statute: https://www.wtnh.com/wp-content/upl...TROCONIS-Arrest-Warrant-Executed-01-07-20.pdf

FWIW I've found the plain language description on this local atty's website somewhat easier to understand (I cannot opine as to his accuracy but he breaks down the charge in a way I find easier as a lay person to understand):

Source:

C.G.S. § 53a-48 – Conspiracy | Fairfield County Criminal Defense Attorney

Free Consultation - Call (203) 357-5555 - Allan F. Friedman aggressively represents the accused against charges in Criminal Defense & Crime cases. C.G.S. § 53a-48 – Conspiracy - Fairfield County Criminal Defense Lawyer

www.allanffriedmanlaw.com

Source: Summary from allan friedman law website

C.G.S. § 53a-48 – Conspiracy​

Conspiracy Generally
The Connecticut legislature has determined that all participants in a criminal conspiracy should be punished equally regardless of their degree of participation. All that is required for a conspiracy prosecution is an agreement to commit a crime and some overt act taken in furtherance of that plan. You can be convicted for conspiracy even if the plan fails, and no crime is ever committed.

Since the punishment for a conspiracy under Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-48 is equal to the crime that was planned to be committed, it is a serious crime. Because the proof of a conspiracy does not require the state to prove that the crime was actually completed, it is often easier for the prosecutor to prove a conspiracy than the crime itself.

The addition of a count of conspiracy significantly enhances the likelihood that the state's attorney will be able to secure a conviction.

In Connecticut, there are no degrees of conspiracy, as in other states. In Connecticut, conspiracy is charged as the same degree as the crime that was the object of the conspiracy, and the punishment is also the same as the crime that was the object of the conspiracy.

Conspiracy Requires a State's Attorney to Prove the Following Facts:
To be convicted of conspiracy in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-48, the prosecutor has to prove the following elements of the crime:
1. The defendant intends that conduct that constitutes a crime be performed; and
2. The defendant agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such acts; and
3. And one of the participants commits an overt act in furtherance of the agreement


MOO

 

[lucegirl]

@afitzy - very helpful. Thank you. I guess I’m searching for the legal source of D’s contention that without a body she is still missing or not a victim or an alleged decedant or a gone girl . At the end of the day I still think there is so much evidence in the record and for the jury to conclude that the poor woman is deceased under any legal theory - if proof of that fact is necessary to establish MT’s culpability.

 

[afitzy]

@afitzy - very helpful. Thank you. I guess I’m searching for the legal source of D’s contention that without a body she is still missing or not a victim or an alleged decedant or a gone girl . At the end of the day I still think there is so much evidence in the record and for the jury to conclude that the poor woman is deceased under any legal theory - if proof of that fact is necessary to establish MT’s culpability.

Yes @lucegirl , I was confused about the same issue and so I reached out to research librarian at local law school to ask them and am waiting for further clarification as they have been quite helpful in furthering my understanding of other issues on this case.

They also have provided alot of interesting information on the other 'no body' murder case in CT (Crafts case) that I am still reading about to refresh my memory as I don't understand why the ME who is a forensic pathologist was barred from speaking at this trial. Certainly a forensic pathologist has the education and expertise to opine on the blood evidence and make determination as to death, even if manner and cause of death aren't possible to determine? I have also seen a forensic anthropologist present a case for cause and manner of death in a very old cold case and that Court allowed the presentation of evidence. Its not the same as this case as the Cold case had bones and other non organic material to present their case to the Court.

Anyway, I'm quite confused on the ME exclusion issue and I know Judge is ruled but I still would like to read more about it as I'm not certain D case citations were correctly presented to the Court and that disturbs me greatly as well in the event Judge relied on those cites (even though it seems like Judge did his own research or had his research atty work up the topic).

FWIW I confirmed with the law library all the cites I gave you for the conspiracy and they told me they were correct after looking at the AA.

I've been asking around on the issue that seems to be puzzling you as well, namely the, "...legal source of D's contention that without a body she is missing...".

FWIW I'm not sure that D is correct on their view as I cannot find anyone else to confirm it but I have asked law library for assistance researching it. My guess right now is that D view is old thinking that could predate the other "no body" Craft's case in CT. I do find it odd that neither State nor D are referring to Crafts case as I would think it is the only precedence available in CT? Again, IDK as a layperson why this might be?

IMO its all made even more confusing as recently D seems to have perhaps backed off their original view of '...without a body she is missing..." as yesterday D seemed to acknowledge that JF is deceased and then when the issue came up today in the context of the Probate Court declaring her deceased, D again seemed to acknowledge the fact. But, D also seemed to be throwing alot of shade on the way Probate Court declared JF deceased (seemed to be alleging closed sessions with family only etc. but ime this is par for the course with Probate Courts in CT as they are all local and run as individual fifedoms using procedures and rules that haven't been changed in 100s of years!). I do wonder if D diatribe on JF being declared deceased is somehow part of the appeal plan but honestly that is simply above my pay grade and simple brain!

As a lay person this is all quite confusing as well as it seems D is simply using the trial to lay foundation for appeal and so sometimes as a lay person its hard to understand which issues are of immediate importance and concern vs simply grounds for eventual appeal?

Seems to be a game of multidimensional chess going on with D and my guess is Judge and State are well aware of what is happening and why but my very basic understanding means I am often quite confused. Its also not helped by the fact that so far a number of the cites provided by D in their motions that I worked with the research librarian to better understand don't seem to bear out to what is stated in the D motion. In my naiveté it never dawned on me that case citation could be so badly restated in D motions as I find this horribly misleading and do wonder if D is playing by procedural rules? I frankly dk but I do trust the info I've received from law librarian on the issues I've researched so far based on their training etc. I did notice today that the State finally did pipe up to say that D 'understanding' of a few of the cites was "ridiculous" and "incorrect". So, seems like the State is well aware of possible games being played by D in their motions and along with the fact that D isn't providing the motions to State and Court in advance either, it must be quite stressful and frustrating for State and the Judge too. IDK, just seems that way to me as a layperson.

The other issue is that perhaps D view on the 'no body issue' was developed before the Probate Court declared JF deceased as this is a recent development in the case and I also very much wonder if it was done precisely to avoid claims from D that JF was missing (also, JF mother GF is 88 years old I believe). Probate Court decision was fairly recent.

Sorry I could not be of more assistance with this but if I hear anything back of use from law school research people I will post back. Thank you for your comments on the case as they have helped my understanding greatly!

MOO

 

[lucegirl]

Just a few quick observations

The Court’s partial exclusion of the ME testimony is not based on the qualifications of the ME. The ME’s credibility and/or standing as a medical expert is not the issue. The Judge ruled that the State’s proffered ME testimony is hearsay - 1) “out of court statement” (the police report); 2) “offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted” (that it is a fact that she died by homicide per the ME opinion). Just because the Court excludes the form of the evidence doesn’t mean the evidence is irrelevant or can’t come in another way.

My view is the Court’s ruling today on the ME is a minor technical set-back because the same substance of the ME’s testimony (clearly a homicide) is already in evidence via the horrendous trail of blood already presented.

If I were the State - I would think to myself - “well, we could have the ME opine on the “presumption” of an unsurvivable event” - but if the Defense opposed that, so I guess we have to refocus the jury onto the horror of the blood evidence upon which any lay person can conclude a homicide occurred during closing.

Regarding the probate decree - it is for a very limited purpose so survivors and heirs can wind down her estate and affairs. It is not evidence of homicide. It’s legal validation of death.

 

[afitzy]

I'm listening to the MT LE Interviews again on Harvard Atty Lee as she has fixed some of the audio issues to make it easier to understand what MT is saying about the issue of custody being possible for FD.

I will do my best to summarise what MT said even though I find her commentary on this entire issue purely delusional and her role during this period 2 weeks before the murder seemed to me to simply wind up and pressure FD to resolve things and he simply exploded with rage.

But, the MT testimony to LE on this issue also could be simply more of her lies and frankly after having listened to this portion of the LE testimony 3x now I do very much wonder if the drama around JF and GF mental health isn't just an elaborate distraction lie created by MT (possibly with the assistance of Mama Troconis) to distract LE and make her appear as a victim in the entire scenario as I do believe MT cares VERY MUCH how she appears to people. I also wonder if the "Family Plan" phone calls might sort out some of the truth from the lies from MT! I hope so as this is just a tangled mess of a story and as I have said before seems like this MT LE Interview reads like the typical SA telenovela but written by someone on CRACK! There is no doubt some truth in this entire long segment of the LE Interview but I'm not sure we know yet where it might be as every time I listen to this story from MT it seems less and less believable....

Anyway, here goes a brief summary along with some of my questions from listening to MT comments to LE:

I never fully understood WHEN FD and MT went to FD Psychologist Humphrey to discuss JF - seems like MT is saying she and FD went to Psychologist Humphrey 2 weeks before the murder of JF. MT talks in the LE Interview about how she wanted to see a "Professional" as she wanted to make sure that 'she was safe, given JF issues allegedly raised in the Herman Report as I would be around the children and JF for the rest of my life". [clip of this discussion happens at 17:59 in Harvard lawyer Lee clips). Question: Was the reason MT stated as reason for going to Humphrey true or a lie? IDK.

What is fascinating is that it seems like MT wrote according to the LE Interview "Paraphrase: MT did alot of research she said and she wrote various lists on 67 things about all the psychological issues discussed about JF in the discredited Dr Herman report and MT reports that FD read all that she wrote and that they discussed all her lists on the issues with Psychologist Humphrey". Can you imagine what FD thought about MT and her list of 67 issues or is this even true? How long did it even take her to do her 'research' and write down her lists of 67 issues and questions. Question: Is this true or is this yet another MT lie? IDK.

I do wonder if FD was possibly doing a 'con job' on MT to try and pacify her to back off on her attacks against him on the issue of resolving divorce/custody but that she was then taking what he was feeding her on the report she claims to never had read and proceeds to bang the drum loudly on the fact that he needs to resolve divorce and custody etc. And so there was this escalation in the pressure in the MT/FD relationship during this period as it seems to be really ratcheting up in a potentially dangerous manner in the two weeks before the murder of JF by FD and fwiw I see MT most clearly as a catalyst of the emotional situation in the relationship escalating dramatically. MT during this period is amping up the pressure on FD while he is trying to pacify her and say everything will be ok because JF 'gets it".

What is also fascinating is that in addition to doing all this research on BPD etc. MT my SPECULATION is that MT enlisted Mama Troconis (herself a discredited former mental health counsellor) and that MT then proceeded to wind up FD on the entire issue as MT kept repeating over and over in the LE interview that she was very upset, very upset and I was concerned and wondered if I was safe....MT also claims that in the discredited Dr Herman report (which she never read as the report was in Atty Mike Rose office - interesting that MT even knew where the report was located) that the big concern was that the Dulos children weren't safe with JF (and ditto for GF).

What is fascinating is that MT does her level best in the LE interview to not only fully discredit the mental health of JF BUT she does the exact same thing about GF in a way that I believe is most clearly slanderous at a minimum. Question: Is MT lying to LE to in her mind somehow justify her involvement in the murder of JF? - IDK but she sure talks a along time and works hard to be quite convincing to LE imo.

What is so fascinating imo about this is that MT seems to fully believe (or is selling LE quite hard) that BOTH JF and GF (2 people who she no doubt believes wish her ill etc) are BOTH mentally incapacitated while she MT is emotionally 'healthy'. But, MT isn't done and now MT in the LE Interview also goes off on issues of JF sister as well (more slander here imo and I do hope GF and JF sister go after MT in civil trial for her remarks about them!). Fascinating that she has seemingly created adverse mental health information scenarios about each of the 3 people who she might believe either wish her ill or could possibly take on custody of 5 dulos children?

Apparently this interview with FD, MT and Psychologic Humphrey happened 2 weeks before the murder.

What is fascinating also to see is in the LE Interview imo MT is very clearly saying to FD that she believes JF is manipulating him and is dangerous (all the while her concern seems to be only for herself which imo is quite telling as she never really seems to even care about FD safety or even the safety of her daughter etc.) while FD is allegedly saying to her that JF 'gets it' and is willing to work with him on the custody issue. Seems like there is ALOT of MT prodding of FD on the issue of resolving custody and divorce.

Interesting imo how clear it is that MT is front and centre in the entire custody situation and seems very well aware of all that FD has told her about the discredited Dr. Herman report. But, what is also interesting imo is that FD seems to be saying to MT that JF 'gets it' and that there will be some resolution to the situation down the road - FD seems to be trying to pacify MT issues while MT seems to be trying to wind up FD getting him to act to resolve the divorce/custody situation. Still its fascinating to me that knowing what she knows (or claims to know) during this period that MT doesn't leave. Nope, she stays put.

At the point in time which was 2 weeks before the murder I very much wonder if FD was trying to pacify MT that the situation would be resolved because he knew that JF would no longer be alive in 2 weeks? This knowledge by FD made it 'safe' to try and pacify MT that all would be well in their world. Question: Was any of this true or is that just more MT lies to LE? Interesting that she works hard to make it clear that FD was the one saying that "JF gets it" while its MT who is saying that JF is dangerous and manipulative. Very curious imo and I wonder why MT is clearly putting FD in a passive role and someone who is willing to possibly work with JF when everything we know about FD is that he never just passively sits back and chooses to simply work with someone who he feels is an adversary. Its honestly hard to believe the MT narrative about FD state of mind here and I very much wonder if this is just another lie on top of many lies with this entire story?

But, it doesn't seem that MT bought this FD narrative that JF "gets it" she is 'selling hard' to LE and she seemed in her imo passive aggressive approach to be demanding that FD do something to resolve the situation soon or this is what she is trying to 'sell hard' to LE.

But, we've seen with MT in her prior LE Interview that she creates drama or certainly bizarre scenarios and lots of words and distractions around portions of the situation or story where she feels uncomfortable or vulnerable to questions or criticism. Perhaps the answer to all of this is that the part of the murder of JF that MT was most concerned about was the two week run up to the murder and that is why she concocted this elaborate story for LE? IDK

My speculation here is very much that MT well knew about the pending murder of JF at least two weeks before the murder and so created all this 'drama' and 'relationship tension' in her narrative with LE to simply distract from the issues that she knew LE was really interested in which was where was JF and I think MT created this entire line of narrative about mental health of JF and GF etc. as a smokescreen of lies for LE while in reality the couple FD/MT were very much in sync on the issue of murdering JF.

What is also fascinating is that in the LE Interview clips that MT clearly says that she believes FD killed Jennifer. MT spends so much time in her remarks being less than clear but as it relates to FD killing JF, I believe MT was quite clear here. Why? Did she say it because she thought LE wanted her to say it or did she say it because she knew it to be true?

My speculation is that MT well knew that JF was going to be murdered and no doubt knew it long before she and FD took the trip to see Dr Humphrey. FWIW, I'm not sure anything MT says about the reasons for the visit to Dr Humphrey can be believed and I very much wonder why else the couple might have gone to meet with Dr Humphrey? Were they trying to have his assistance or get some help figuring out how to secure full custody of the dulos children and their money? I am not believing the MT story at all about her being concerned for her safety. But, there was a reason for the couple meeting with Humphrey but I am not sure we yet know what it was.

I just think that what MT was feeding LE in her interview as simply a tangled mess of lies and some truths and I just hope LE sorted through it all and we eventually learn the motivation behind this interview which imo is MT at her delusional worst. But, regardless of what is true here and false here, its quite clear that MT KNEW EVERY DETAIL OF THE DISCREDITED HERMAN REPORT and was enmeshed with FD on whatever his plans were for the murder of JF imo.


MOO

Responding to my OP to update on the MT testimony with LE that when she found out about the FD Welles meal and Grace Farms visit that she got very angry and threw down her phone and told FD he was, "...being disrespectful of her...". Not sure whether to believe any of this other than that MT was quite angry about not being told the truth by FD but for someone whose life seems to be her phone I find it hard to believe she would throw it down.

MOO

 

[sleuth66]

Following the blue line, on the maps (ty), to the red arrow is Jennifer's home, correct?

The witness who testified about having 79 cameras on his property along Weed St, didn't he say there's no cut through because of bushes, a fence and marshy area? Or did I hear that wrong? < had to miss today so catching up > TIA

I saw the backpack on the cyclist, too. Where did Fotis get off of his bicycle? Did he cycle right up to Jen's house?

Sheesh, FD was bold biking on Frogtown (presumably) at morning rush hour! I had always thought that FD might have cut through Indian Waters, but given the location of this camera he apparently did not, which would mean he took Frogtown to… ? Where? he must have ditched the bike and cut through somewhere, he didn’t bike up Welles Ln and her driveway did he (we would have seen that on the Welles neighbour camera that showed her Suburban, plus even FD wasn’t that stupid or bold).
I would think he would stand out biking with that backpack, lots of cars on that road at that time of the morning, plus that is not exactly a bike friendly road!
Over the years they’ve put up signs and tried to make the road safer. Here’s an article about it:

Resident Calls for Traffic Calming on Frogtown Near Weed Street

The owner of three contiguous properties near the eastern end of Frogtown Road is asking town officials to help reduce the speed of motorists at the sharp bend there, down the hill from the intersection at Weed Street. Limited visibility creates a safety hazard at the curve that slopes down from...

newcanaanite.com

 

[sleuth66]

Ooh, MT told the GAL she was going to leave FD due to the custody battle

Michelle Manning said that FD and MT called GAL Meehan in March 2019 “pleading” for an end to the visitation situation. I guess we’re going to hear more about that soon…
MOO:
I am guessing that MT had to decide to re-up her daughters enrollment at Ethel Walker at that time and she was trying to make plans for the next school year (that’s about the time when deposits due) and MT wasn’t happy with the visitation situation so she was weighing her options to move her daughter to CO. Training at Sundown vs training at Vail, ahem, apples and oranges or maybe more like apples vs raisins…. Her daughter was giving up a lot being in CT.
So the pressure was on. It seemed like Herman was their only hope, and when he walked off the stand due to non payment, never to return, that’s when they took things in their own hands. MT had a vested interest in getting JFD out of the picture and FD was on notice and the pressure was building…would be interesting to know the exact timeline of when MT went to the expert psych to learn about JDs “condition” and when KM helped her fill out and file the restraining order application against JFD at Farmington police.
We are seeing the puzzle pieces fill in- MT was fed up with the ongoing custody battle and things were getting to a boiling point.

MOO.

 

[Ruminations]

As someone who IS in CT, I’m scratching my head here as well. This is a tax payer funded service that makes sense to me for those who actually need it, but observing this case it seems the program is vulnerable to opportunistic abuse.

Troconis's freedom is on the line- it's very high stakes. It woukd be inappropriate to not provide an interpreter IMO.

It's not something to look at from a tax payer point of view. If it were not provided I suppose it could save a bundle because she could win the appeal and the very high cost of incarceration could be avoided. I don't think that is what you want.

In fact, if tax savings is the goal, why prosecute at all?

Or, we could hire a language forensic expert to evaluate her skills, including her skills under the severe stress of threat of incarceration, and also deal with defense's counter experts on the subject if her language abilities. Then, if we "win," we will have spent all the money that could have gone to the interpreter for that. And if we lose, we spring for the interpreter all the same.

Aside from the fact that nobody wants to hear that annoying drone in court, I don't get the resistance to the interpreter. I think her language deficits are real even though she is bilingual. But even if I thought she were faking it, IMO, there is nothing to gain in arguing about that. She says she has a boo-boo. Even if you don't believe it, why not slap on the bandage and move on?

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

@afitzy - very helpful. Thank you. I guess I’m searching for the legal source of D’s contention that without a body she is still missing or not a victim or an alleged decedant or a gone girl . At the end of the day I still think there is so much evidence in the record and for the jury to conclude that the poor woman is deceased under any legal theory - if proof of that fact is necessary to establish MT’s culpability.

It's to the States disadvantage that they did not have the opportunity to prosecute Fotis Dulos. That would have divided the tasks of proving a murder occurred and proving conspiracy.

MOO

 

[Niner]

Day 21:

https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-trial-live-updates-day-21-dulos-18666722.php

 

[Niner]

Thursday, February 15th:
*Trial continues (Day 22) (@ 10am ET) – CT – Jennifer Rebecca Farber Dulos (50) (May 24, 2019, New Canaan; still missing) – *Michelle C. Troconis (44/now 49) (Dulos’ GF) arrested & charged (6/1/19) & arraigned (6/3/19) with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence & hindering prosecution. Plead not guilty. $500K bond. Posted bond (on 6/3/19). These charges were dismissed (8/28/20) & recharged below.
*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.
*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.
*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.
The declaration of death for Jennifer was3 officially issued by Judge William P. Osterndorf on October 24, 2023.
Jury Selection began on 10/4/23 & ended 10/26/23. Another jury selection after dismissed jurors on 1/10/24. Now 6 jurors & 2 alternates. (4 women & 4 men).
Trial began on 1/11/24. (will last about a month to 3/1/24).
Superior Court Judge Kevin Randolph presiding for trial. Assistant State’s attorney Sean McGuinness & Supervisory assistant State’s attorney Michelle Manning & defense attorneys Jon Schoenhorn & Audrey Felson.
Bond info & Court info from 6/3/19 thru 12/6/23 & Jury Selection Day 1-11 (10/4-10/26/23), 2nd Jury Selection Day 1-2 (1/9 & 1/10/24) & Trial Day 1-20 (1/11-2/8/24) reference post #1046 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-canaan-24-may-2019-arrests-62.703629/page-53
Judge Kevin Randolph taking up an amended motion filed by the state last week. The order, which he granted, asked the court to require attorney Michael Meehan, the guardian ad litem for the five Dulos children, to testify about what he knew & provide documents in the divorce & custody case between Jennifer & Fotis Dulos. The order noted that the state was not seeking testimony or notes pertaining to conversations or observations regarding the five minor children, according to Randolph. Randolph also granted a third-party witness protective order, which prohibited testimony concerning any facts that could negatively impact the five minor children & any facts involving the minor children in the divorce & custody battles. Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney Michelle Manning said the state wants to question Meehan regarding communications between him & Fotis Dulos, sometimes including Michelle Troconis. Manning said the contents of these phone calls would have to do with the states of mind of Fotis Dulos & Troconis, and the frustration they expressed to the attorney. Manning said the state will not inquire about a custody evaluation, which has been sealed. Randolph narrowed the state’s case to when the supervised visitation began, and what Fotis Dulos' responses were to the supervised visitation & the sealed custody report. Schoenhorn said in his new motion that police obtained a new search warrant in October 2023 for the phone records & the prosecution informed him they plan to present the evidence to the jury. In the new motion, Schoenhorn said the warrant police filed for the records was “overly broad” & “misrepresented the truth.” Randolph denied a motion to suppress Troconis' cellphone records.
Schoenhorn said he objected to a video the state intends to introduce. According to Schoenhorn, the state intends to put on a video of a person in a sweatshirt riding a bicycle about a half-hour away from Jennifer Dulos' home on Welles Lane. Schoenhorn said he also had a motion filed against the video, which Randolph denied. Manning said they planned to introduce the video through testimony by a resident of Weed Street in New Canaan. Manning said the state also plans to bring out a police officer, another lay witness & Dr. James Gill, the chief medical examiner of Connecticut, to testify Wednesday.
2/14/24 Wednesday Trial Day 21: State witnesses: Connecticut State Police Sgt. Jamie Pearson. Cederic Candiotti, general manager of the Russell Speeder’s Car Wash in Avon. Prosecutors showed some of this video surveillance to the jurors.
Attorneys argued a motion filed by the defense to exclude opinions from Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner James Gill. Randolph ultimately granted the motion, excluding Gill’s testimony.
Todd Holson, who owns a home on Weed Street in New Canaan. Manning then showed footage outside of Holson’s home facing Weed Street. The videos showed a bicyclist riding down Weed Street at 7:31 a.m. on May 24, 2019, & again at 10:30 a.m.
for more info see post #473 (article) here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-canaan-24-may-2019-arrests-63.704194/page-24
Trial continues on Thursday, 2/15/24.

 

[Ruminations]

Instead of getting angry at the 3:30 ruckus caused by pets, I made use of being awake.

I watched to voir dire regarding the weed street videos. Homeowner said the quality is 30 frames per second.

Defense is calling it stop action. Homeowner agrees it's choppy, but calls it continuous.

I don't know what exact fps defines continuous filming, but the witness was specific. Defense council wants to arbitrarily decide that 30 fps is "stop action."

The speed of the movement objects being filmed is going to determine if it looks choppy.

Let's say the car that defense says appears and disappears is traveling at 30 mph. That means it is traveling 44 feet per second. In other words, nearly a foot and a half per frame. A little faster, and the car will definitely jerk along the street at 30 frames per second.

The bike, otoh, would have been going about 10 mph. Only 4.4 feet per second. Less than 2" per frame. So it looks smoother.

MOO

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Instead of getting angry at the 3:30 ruckus caused by pets, I made use of being awake.

I watched to voir dire regarding the weed street videos. Homeowner said the quality is 30 frames per second.

Defense is calling it stop action. Homeowner agrees it's choppy, but calls it continuous.

I don't know what exact fps defines continuous filming, but the witness was specific. Defense council wants to arbitrarily decide that 30 fps is "stop action."

The speed of the movement objects being filmed is going to determine if it looks choppy.

Let's say the car that defense says appears and disappears is traveling at 30 mph. That means it is traveling 44 feet per second. In other words, nearly a foot and a half per frame. A little faster, and the car will definitely jerk along the street at 30 frames per second.

The bike, otoh, would have been going about 10 mph. Only 4.4 feet per second. Less than 2" per frame. So it looks smoother.

MOO

JS definitely trying to get witness to agree to the word “stop action” which thankfully he didn’t.
I don’t think “stop action” is a thing for continuous filming video camera. (Google doesn’t even give a result for “stop action video surveillance”). Stop action.. my kids made Lego people “stop action” animated short movies back in the day.

JS would have tortured us with some crazy questioning cast doubt about fact watchers see a man-looking person on a racing type bike at a particular time.

A salute to Weed Street Landowner, his 75-95 cameras and his sticking to the word “choppy”!
And
To the state for offering the explanation that their laptop wasn’t as good as Landowners powerful video playback system.

 

[afitzy]

Sheesh, FD was bold biking on Frogtown (presumably) at morning rush hour! I had always thought that FD might have cut through Indian Waters, but given the location of this camera he apparently did not, which would mean he took Frogtown to… ? Where? he must have ditched the bike and cut through somewhere, he didn’t bike up Welles Ln and her driveway did he (we would have seen that on the Welles neighbour camera that showed her Suburban, plus even FD wasn’t that stupid or bold).
I would think he would stand out biking with that backpack, lots of cars on that road at that time of the morning, plus that is not exactly a bike friendly road!
Over the years they’ve put up signs and tried to make the road safer. Here’s an article about it:

Resident Calls for Traffic Calming on Frogtown Near Weed Street

The owner of three contiguous properties near the eastern end of Frogtown Road is asking town officials to help reduce the speed of motorists at the sharp bend there, down the hill from the intersection at Weed Street. Limited visibility creates a safety hazard at the curve that slopes down from...

newcanaanite.com

This surprised me too as that road is quite dangerous and if you put a bike on there during bus time and heading to station time, yikes! I remember long ago when we debated the route I never thought frog town because of curves, narrowness, poor visibility and elevation changes. I wonder if anyone remembered seeing FD on frog town?

Moo

 

[afitzy]

JS definitely trying to get witness to agree to the word “stop action” which thankfully he didn’t.
I don’t think “stop action” is a thing for continuous filming video camera. (Google doesn’t even give a result for “stop action video surveillance”). Stop action.. my kids made Lego people “stop action” animated short movies back in the day.

JS would have tortured us with some crazy questioning cast doubt about fact watchers see a man-looking person on a racing type bike at a particular time.

A salute to Weed Street Landowner, his 75-95 cameras and his sticking to the word “choppy”!
And
To the state for offering the explanation that their laptop wasn’t as good as Landowners powerful video playback system.

Personally I thing “esteemed defence counsel” had already had a rough day as by the time he got to Mr Holson he was forgetting words and bumbling around. Witness did a great job talking about his Fort Knox security system too. The entire “stop action” narrative was ridiculous to describe the system in question which was continuous as you point out.

And, I also think “esteemed defence counsel”might just has simply been envious and annoyed about Mr Holsons beautifully tailored navy suit! Moo

 

[afitzy]

Michelle Manning said that FD and MT called GAL Meehan in March 2019 “pleading” for an end to the visitation situation. I guess we’re going to hear more about that soon…
MOO:
I am guessing that MT had to decide to re-up her daughters enrollment at Ethel Walker at that time and she was trying to make plans for the next school year (that’s about the time when deposits due) and MT wasn’t happy with the visitation situation so she was weighing her options to move her daughter to CO. Training at Sundown vs training at Vail, ahem, apples and oranges or maybe more like apples vs raisins…. Her daughter was giving up a lot being in CT.
So the pressure was on. It seemed like Herman was their only hope, and when he walked off the stand due to non payment, never to return, that’s when they took things in their own hands. MT had a vested interest in getting JFD out of the picture and FD was on notice and the pressure was building…would be interesting to know the exact timeline of when MT went to the expert psych to learn about JDs “condition” and when KM helped her fill out and file the restraining order application against JFD at Farmington police.
We are seeing the puzzle pieces fill in- MT was fed up with the ongoing custody battle and things were getting to a boiling point.

MOO.

I had same question about timing and am now confused about the timing of the KM written report info. The last MT le Testimony had her saying the KM written letter to Farmington pd that she delivered saying she was afraid was a year before the murder.

But, the visit to psychologist with FD to discuss the report was a weeks before the murder!

This surprised me as I thought both events happed a year before the murder.

I wonder if this is just another example of lying about lies?
MOO

 

[DeDee]

>>> Meehan’s testimony < > will include information deemed relevant to the case, including apparent frustration in Troconis and Dulos’ relationship related to the ongoing divorce and custody proceedings between Dulos and his estranged wife.

>>> testify about a conversation involving Troconis and Dulos, which the state indicated will lend to their state of mind around the time of Farber Dulos’ disappearance.

>>> Dulos had told Troconis and others that the custody study was going well and favorably.

“The heart of the defense is what Dulos told not only Michelle but friends, family, third party, about how well things were going in the custody study,” he said.

Michelle Troconis jury won’t hear from medical examiner about Jennifer Farber Dulos’ death

Of course, Dulos told everyone things were going well in the child custody for him; otherwise, if they weren't, he'd have a strong motive to murder when Jen's killed two weeks later.