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

[afitzy]

Someone could volunteer to watch the cctv trash bag dumps again to see what the timestamp reads to determine when the tags went down the drainage and when they were at Starbucks, their last stop, in order to compare it to cell phone records for a match. We need a 7:47pm range:

"Police said Dulos’ phone records show him calling Mawhinney on May 24 at 7:47 p.m.–in the time period in which Dulos was allegedly discarding evidence in the case in Hartford."

Who is Kent Mawhinney? | Law & Crime

This is 7:48 and right before this FD was sitting in the vehicle after having pulled up at 7:47 and he oddly opens the door and then closes it before getting out at 7:48. Could this have been the phone call time you mention?


If you want to play the video for replay here is source at 7:49:

 

[afitzy]

Yes definitely

But, what if info is on phone and it hasn't been backed up to cloud yet? What does he think about this? Or does cloud backup happen automatically every time data is entered on phone?

 

[afitzy]

This is interesting as I don’t recall FD on phone when he was dumping plates but I do remember him looking at his phone a lot in Starbucks. Will go back and double check my recollection on Starbucks.

Replying to myself here as I just rewatched the license plate drop and FD pulls off to park at 7:47pm, opens his doors to go back in car for a second and then exits at 7:48. FD puts something into trash receptacle then goes to passenger side of truck and it looks like MT hands him the white fedex envelope and he then drops it into storm drain.

I just posted video confirmation below from trial but it was removed by Mod for reasons I don't understand as it was Trial video! So, I won't waste more time reposting images as I am simply giving up.

 

[Megnut]

Gum.

Sticky.

Could she be telling a half truth?

The license plates... there was tape and an adhesive of some kind IIRC. Maybe she put the plates in the mailer and did get gunk on her fingers...

That's what I'm thinking she was doing...

JMO

 

[Aquarian]

• Search Warrants and Probable Cause Court Orders are signed by a judge, and they are issued only upon a finding of “probable cause.” To be issued, the warrant or order must be supported by sworn testimony and sufficient evidence to believe the information demanded is evidence of a crime. Probable cause is viewed as the highest standard to demand evidence. Except in emergency circumstances, a search warrant or probable cause court order is required for all real-time precise location information (like GPS) and real-time content (such as content obtained through wiretaps). Stored content (like stored text and voice messages) generally also requires a warrant.“

AT&T - Sustainability Reporting - Transparency Report

AT&T's Sustainability Reporting

sustainability.att.com

The slide also shows that AT&T retains “cloud storage internet/web browsing” data for 1 year. When asked what this detail entails exactly, such as websites visited by customers on the AT&T network, AT&T spokesperson Margaret Boles said in an email that “Like all companies, we are required by law to comply with mandatory legal demands, such as warrants based on probable cause. Our responses comply with the law.” The document also mentions that law enforcement can request records related to wearable devices from AT&T.

Here's the FBI's Internal Guide for Getting Data from AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon

The newly obtained document shows in granular detail the sort of data that the country's carriers keep, and for how long.

www.vice.com

callback=in&code=YJQ4MGRLZDQTNDM0OC0ZNGIZLTK5MGUTN2U1NDLMOTNMYJZK&state=f4ddfd3a9c6d45f4ac3227b5ace6e43c


I might not be posting approved sites, sorry if so. But both provides good info related to
AT&T if they had proper original warrant. All imo

 

[afitzy]

This is 7:48 and right before this FD was sitting in the vehicle after having pulled up at 7:47 and he oddly opens the door and then closes it before getting out at 7:48. Could this have been the phone call time you mention?
View attachment 483068

If you want to play the video for replay here is source at 7:49:

At 7:49 FD goes to curb side of truck and shoves white envelope with plates in storm drain.

 

[afitzy]

• Search Warrants and Probable Cause Court Orders are signed by a judge, and they are issued only upon a finding of “probable cause.” To be issued, the warrant or order must be supported by sworn testimony and sufficient evidence to believe the information demanded is evidence of a crime. Probable cause is viewed as the highest standard to demand evidence. Except in emergency circumstances, a search warrant or probable cause court order is required for all real-time precise location information (like GPS) and real-time content (such as content obtained through wiretaps). Stored content (like stored text and voice messages) generally also requires a warrant.“

AT&T - Sustainability Reporting - Transparency Report

AT&T's Sustainability Reporting

sustainability.att.com

The slide also shows that AT&T retains “cloud storage internet/web browsing” data for 1 year. When asked what this detail entails exactly, such as websites visited by customers on the AT&T network, AT&T spokesperson Margaret Boles said in an email that “Like all companies, we are required by law to comply with mandatory legal demands, such as warrants based on probable cause. Our responses comply with the law.” The document also mentions that law enforcement can request records related to wearable devices from AT&T.

Here's the FBI's Internal Guide for Getting Data from AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon

The newly obtained document shows in granular detail the sort of data that the country's carriers keep, and for how long.

www.vice.com

callback=in&code=YJQ4MGRLZDQTNDM0OC0ZNGIZLTK5MGUTN2U1NDLMOTNMYJZK&state=f4ddfd3a9c6d45f4ac3227b5ace6e43c


I might not be posting approved sites, sorry if so. But both provides good info related to
AT&T if they had proper original warrant. All imo

That article might explain the issue of data retention too. Interesting. Will read now. MOO

 

[Jmoose]

I know that location data on a phone is much more precise than the tower data that you get when you request records. Also, photos and videos would not be on carrier records. There's probably more that I'm not thinking of.

It is weird that the State filed for a new warrant - maybe that was for the physical phone and not the records? I hate that we don't get to actually see most of the documents.

What about texts-is there only a record of them on the actual phone? Sorry, I don’t know anything about how these things work.

 

[afitzy]

• Search Warrants and Probable Cause Court Orders are signed by a judge, and they are issued only upon a finding of “probable cause.” To be issued, the warrant or order must be supported by sworn testimony and sufficient evidence to believe the information demanded is evidence of a crime. Probable cause is viewed as the highest standard to demand evidence. Except in emergency circumstances, a search warrant or probable cause court order is required for all real-time precise location information (like GPS) and real-time content (such as content obtained through wiretaps). Stored content (like stored text and voice messages) generally also requires a warrant.“

AT&T - Sustainability Reporting - Transparency Report

AT&T's Sustainability Reporting

sustainability.att.com

The slide also shows that AT&T retains “cloud storage internet/web browsing” data for 1 year. When asked what this detail entails exactly, such as websites visited by customers on the AT&T network, AT&T spokesperson Margaret Boles said in an email that “Like all companies, we are required by law to comply with mandatory legal demands, such as warrants based on probable cause. Our responses comply with the law.” The document also mentions that law enforcement can request records related to wearable devices from AT&T.

Here's the FBI's Internal Guide for Getting Data from AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon

The newly obtained document shows in granular detail the sort of data that the country's carriers keep, and for how long.

www.vice.com

callback=in&code=YJQ4MGRLZDQTNDM0OC0ZNGIZLTK5MGUTN2U1NDLMOTNMYJZK&state=f4ddfd3a9c6d45f4ac3227b5ace6e43c


I might not be posting approved sites, sorry if so. But both provides good info related to
AT&T if they had proper original warrant. All imo

Here is chart from the article/slideshow with AT&T showing what looks like a 7 year retention period for most categories except internet/web browsing is 1 year retention. So, if warrant was just issued late last year then 2019 would be in retention window I think and so the Defence argument of State relying on previously received documents doesn't seem correct (assuming I am understanding Defence argument of course....). MOO.

Source: FBI Cast Information

 

[afitzy]

• Search Warrants and Probable Cause Court Orders are signed by a judge, and they are issued only upon a finding of “probable cause.” To be issued, the warrant or order must be supported by sworn testimony and sufficient evidence to believe the information demanded is evidence of a crime. Probable cause is viewed as the highest standard to demand evidence. Except in emergency circumstances, a search warrant or probable cause court order is required for all real-time precise location information (like GPS) and real-time content (such as content obtained through wiretaps). Stored content (like stored text and voice messages) generally also requires a warrant.“

AT&T - Sustainability Reporting - Transparency Report

AT&T's Sustainability Reporting

sustainability.att.com

The slide also shows that AT&T retains “cloud storage internet/web browsing” data for 1 year. When asked what this detail entails exactly, such as websites visited by customers on the AT&T network, AT&T spokesperson Margaret Boles said in an email that “Like all companies, we are required by law to comply with mandatory legal demands, such as warrants based on probable cause. Our responses comply with the law.” The document also mentions that law enforcement can request records related to wearable devices from AT&T.

Here's the FBI's Internal Guide for Getting Data from AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon

The newly obtained document shows in granular detail the sort of data that the country's carriers keep, and for how long.

www.vice.com

callback=in&code=YJQ4MGRLZDQTNDM0OC0ZNGIZLTK5MGUTN2U1NDLMOTNMYJZK&state=f4ddfd3a9c6d45f4ac3227b5ace6e43c


I might not be posting approved sites, sorry if so. But both provides good info related to
AT&T if they had proper original warrant. All imo

Vice article is wonderful! Thank you. So helpful to understanding all the data that is tracking us all. Haven't made it through the slide show that is part of the article but that looks to have amazing info as well. Thanks so much for posting as its great to have more current data.

For anyone that wants to take a look at the underlying data referred to in the article here is link to property of the people/FBI information:

Document Detail

propertyofthepeople.org

Looks like the LE would make the following request to AT&T:

AT&T: Provide Call Detail Records (CDRs) for *advertiser censored*-*advertiser censored*-XXXX, for the time period XXXX –XXXXX, to include:
1. All subscriber information, including name, address, contact numbers, activation/deactivation dates, account number, social security number, and account features
2. Cell site locations and sectors for all outgoing and incoming voice, SMS, MMS, and Data transactions.
3. All available historical precision location (NELOS) reports
4. All available Internet and Web Browsing History, to include history with and without location information.
5. All twinned/paired devices associated with the account

Note by me: I don't think 4. would return any info if request was made in 2023/24 as the data request was for 2019 and Internet/Web Browsing has 1 year retention if I read the above posted chart correctly.

All guesses by me to try and see what the State might have rec'd from a request made in 2023/24 for MT cell phone information from 2019.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

So I am finding this confusing - ianal
As per the judges decision posted by @Gardenista
- May 27th 2019 there was a warrant to search the defendants phone records
- However.. there was no warrant for search and seizure of the defendants cell phone as of May 31 2019
The state argued exigent circumstances ( which lets you bypass the warrant) when they took the phone but the judge sided with the defense and ruled to suppress 12/23 - the warrantless seizure of the defendants cell phone.

So what info does this motion actually suppress ? You had a warrant for the cell phone records - what else do you get from the phone that the carrier cannot share with you. Motion information from the Health App?
Or does the suppression of the seizure the cell phone mean the state cannot use anything gained from her cell phone?

Also per the articel posted by @BUF above :
While the above motion by the D was pending, the Western District Major Crime Squad filed on Oct 2 2023 a new search warrant for any and all info starting on March 20 1019 regarding the Defendants cell phone records.
Per Schoenhorn ( eyeroll ) :
“The use of these AT&T records by the state at trial at the eleventh hour is the fruit of the unlawful prior seizure obtained as a result of the defective 2019 warrant,” Schoenhorn wrote. “Through information and belief, said records (would] no longer be available through AT&T had they not been retained pursuant to the prior unlawful seizure.”
Schoenhorn also wrote that the second application “falsely represented” to the judge that it had not been presented in any other court or to any other judge in the past “when they knew full well that they were in possession of these records when it was obtained in May 2019 under the prior defective search warrant.”

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-jennifer-dulos-cellphone-records-18662588.php

If a new search warrant was filed, I guess the old search warrant was deemed inadmissable - but then can you
refile essentially for the same thing?

It should be clear tomorrow morning when the judge rules and parses it all out for us.

There must be some important info in those records IMO

All IMO

Yes, imo its all about the location data.

But, I think "Esteemed Defence Counsel" is incorrect about the AT&T data retention guidelines (see my posting below from info posted from Vice article and FBI information).

MOO

 

[afitzy]

Someone could volunteer to watch the cctv trash bag dumps again to see what the timestamp reads to determine when the tags went down the drainage and when they were at Starbucks, their last stop, in order to compare it to cell phone records for a match. We need a 7:47pm range:

"Police said Dulos’ phone records show him calling Mawhinney on May 24 at 7:47 p.m.–in the time period in which Dulos was allegedly discarding evidence in the case in Hartford."

Who is Kent Mawhinney? | Law & Crime

@DeDee, I posted 3 images of FD and MT on Albany to explain what I think could answer your question but my posts were removed. So, here are the images we saw in Court from the City of Hartford C4 feed.
Summary: FD/MT pull to curb 7:46, FD opens door and then closes it (perhaps to take call at 7:47?), opens door at 7:48 goes to trash receptical and tosses something in, goes to curtsied near where MT is on passenger side and it looks like MT passes FD the white fed ex envelope which he puts into storm drain.

 

[Southernsnooper]

Gum.

Sticky.

Could she be telling a half truth?

The license plates... there was tape and an adhesive of some kind IIRC. Maybe she put the plates in the mailer and did get gunk on her fingers...

Bingo!
That's what I'm thinking she was doing...

JMO

Bingo! That tape is sticky and yes, she was absolutely helping.

Let’s ask the simple question: when wasn’t she helping? It’s no coincidence she was there for all of it. At 4jc, at 80 ms, shuttling the cars so that PG couldn’t easily get his truck back as the seats were covered in blood.

She was there in Hartford, Starbucks, followed him to the car wash etc. She stayed with Fotis. She did not leave.

You just have to stop and use your brain. Nobody is that naive.

Then the lies, Gosh, the lies didn’t stop from one interview to the next and the next.

Her attorney Andrew Bowman no longer represented her, ask yourself why?

Why didn’t she take a deal that they tried to offer her oh so many times? It’s on tape. LE essentially begged her.

Again, we the people are not ignorant, we are not fooled by her sexual innuendos and distraction tactics. Listen to the interviews, watch her patterns. It’s as clear as day, when she doesn’t want to answer the question, she goes off on tangents and expects you to be none the wiser.

We are sleuths and it’s why we have been following this case from day one.

We follow the facts.

We spent countless hours (look at all of the hard work everyone has done over the years.)


She helped the entire time before and after, All one has to do is follow this woman’s path (read and listen carefully to the interviews,written alibi scripts in perfect English, read every page of the arrest warrants), look at her body language from her arrests, during her interviews, walks to and from her court appearances from the beginning (not now but the early appearances, Starbucks when leaning up to the counter you have to zoom in and watch careful her leg is completely shaking, every thing the beginning to the end and there are no other explanations. Period. You cannot no matter how hard you may try, make any other conclusion except guilty on all charges. I’ve tried this exercise as I believe it’s helpful to see things from both the defense and prosecution.

In this day and age, it astounds me that she thinks she can get away with it.

She should have confessed at the beginning and she didn’t. Her lies and deceit have a price tag and she will have to pay dearly.

Listen to her statements about Jennifer and that’s what she said in front of PG, imagine what she said in private. She tried to blame the victim and said she was afraid of Jennifer. Wow. Afraid of Jennifer, let that sink in… maybe people should read Jennifer’s blogs.

Michelle hated Jennifer and wanted her dead. It is that simple and her actions and words lead you to no other verdict in my opinion. She had an absolute fit when she learned that Fotis went to Jennifer’s house when the park closed early. Isn’t that telling? She threw the phone!!! She was jealous and her motive is evident.

It’s amusing to watch JS and his silly (paid handsomely) attempts to obfuscate the truth but I truly hope that the jury follow ms the facts of the witnesses and experts to find justice for Jennifer.

She deserves it.

Moo

Moo

 

[afitzy]

Bingo! That tape is sticky and yes, she was absolutely helping.

Let’s ask the simple question: when wasn’t she helping? It’s no coincidence she was there for all of it. At 4jc, at 80 ms, shuttling the cars so that PG couldn’t easily get his truck back as the seats were covered in blood.

She was there in Hartford, Starbucks, followed him to the car wash etc. She stayed with Fotis. She did not leave.

You just have to stop and use your brain. Nobody is that naive.

Then the lies, Gosh, the lies didn’t stop from one interview to the next and the next.

Her attorney Andrew Bowman no longer represented her, ask yourself why?

Why didn’t she take a deal that they tried to offer her oh so many times? It’s on tape. LE essentially begged her.

Again, we the people are not ignorant, we are not fooled by her sexual innuendos and distraction tactics. Listen to the interviews, watch her patterns. It’s as clear as day, when she doesn’t want to answer the question, she goes off on tangents and expects you to be none the wiser.

We are sleuths and it’s why we have been following this case from day one.

We follow the facts.

We spent countless hours (look at all of the hard work everyone has done over the years.)


She helped the entire time before and after, All one has to do is follow this woman’s path (read and listen carefully to the interviews,written alibi scripts in perfect English, read every page of the arrest warrants), look at her body language from her arrests, during her interviews, walks to and from her court appearances from the beginning (not now but the early appearances, Starbucks when leaning up to the counter you have to zoom in and watch careful her leg is completely shaking, every thing the beginning to the end and there are no other explanations. Period. You cannot no matter how hard you may try, make any other conclusion except guilty on all charges. I’ve tried this exercise as I believe it’s helpful to see things from both the defense and prosecution.

In this day and age, it astounds me that she thinks she can get away with it.

She should have confessed at the beginning and she didn’t. Her lies and deceit have a price tag and she will have to pay dearly.

Listen to her statements about Jennifer and that’s what she said in front of PG, imagine what she said in private. She tried to blame the victim and said she was afraid of Jennifer. Wow. Afraid of Jennifer, let that sink in… maybe people should read Jennifer’s blogs.

Michelle hated Jennifer and wanted her dead. It is that simple and her actions and words lead you to no other verdict in my opinion. She had an absolute fit when she learned that Fotis went to Jennifer’s house when the park closed early. Isn’t that telling? She threw the phone!!! She was jealous and her motive is evident.

It’s amusing to watch JS and his silly (paid handsomely) attempts to obfuscate the truth but I truly hope that the jury follow ms the facts of the witnesses and experts to find justice for Jennifer.

She deserves it.

Moo

Moo

Totally agree!

FWIW since I have now had my last 3 posts removed for simply reposting trial feed images and so had to rewatch the video footage now 3x to recapture the images again, I can safely say that I believe LE to be correct that MT hands FD the white Fed Ex envelope when he goes to the side of the truck near the passenger door. It took 3x to see it clearly as its a pretty good 'fake out' or 'three card monte' as when FD first gets out of the truck he does dump something white into the trash receptacle and so that kinda fools the eye a bit and then he goes off camera and is near the passenger door and that is when it looks like MT hands him the envelope and he bends down to slide it into the storm drain. Its also clearer if you slow the feed down to 75% speed which is what I did on my third viewing.

So, MT did help FD by handing him the envelope which he then slid into the storm drain.

MOO

 

[Southernsnooper]

Totally agree!

FWIW since I have now had my last 3 posts removed for simply reposting trial feed images and so had to rewatch the video footage now 3x to recapture the images again, I can safely say that I believe LE to be correct that MT hands FD the white Fed Ex envelope when he goes to the side of the truck near the passenger door. It took 3x to see it clearly as its a pretty good 'fake out' or 'three card monte' as when FD first gets out of the truck he does dump something white into the trash receptacle and so that kinda fools the eye a bit and then he goes off camera and is near the passenger door and that is when it looks like MT hands him the envelope and he bends down to slide it into the storm drain. Its also clearer if you slow the feed down to 75% speed which is what I did on my third viewing.

So, MT did help FD by handing him the envelope which he then slid into the storm drain.

MOO

Wow, that’s unacceptable.

The trial images should be fair game.

They are public and should not be blocked. We are trying our best here and your efforts should not be punished.

Moo

 

[Southernsnooper]

Yes, watched in slow motion, Michelle Troconis hands Fotis the FedEx package which he then inserts into the sewer drain.

You are right.

Moo

 

[afitzy]

Wow, that’s unacceptable.

The trial images should be fair game.

They are public and should not be blocked. We are trying our best here and your efforts should not be punished.

Moo

Anyway, the positive of the situation is that its clear to me that LE is CORRECT that MT HELPED FD by passing him the Fed Ex envelope which he then places in the storm drain.

As others have stated, I wonder if her saying she tossed her gum or cleaned her hands was simply the 'fake out' as what she really did was keep her door open to shield FD and then she passed him the envelope and he placed it into the storm drain.

If you watch the video from 7:46 = 7:49 in slow speed its possible to understand what is going on. What was tricky is that because FD isn't tall that he can't be clearly seen from the image of the feed but its possible to see him going over the MT door and then see him bending down and all this happens while the passenger side door of the truck and MT are visible.

It took 4x to see it clearly as its a pretty good 'fake out' as FD and MT sit inside the truck for a second or two and we see FD open the truck door and then close it for a second after FD pulls over to side of street and parks truck. FD exists the truck carrying 2 white items (looks like plastic bag and white fedex envelope). When FD first gets out of the truck he first does dump something white (looks like a plastic bag) into the trash receptacle and so that kinda fools the eye a bit and then he goes off camera and is near the open passenger door where we had just seen MT wipe something on the sidewalk and and FD bends down to slide it into the storm drain. While all of this is happening the passenger side door remains open and it effectively shields FD from view. Its also clearer if you slow the feed down to 75% speed which is what I did on my third viewing.

So, MT did help FD by handing him the envelope which he then slid into the storm drain.

MOO
MOO

 

[afitzy]

DBM

 

[Southernsnooper]

Yes, watched in slow motion, Michelle Troconis hands Fotis the FedEx package which he then inserts into the sewer drain.

You are right.

Moo

They can spin it but a smart jury I hope will see this and see that she tried to obstruct the view by opening the door. The gum swiping is such a weak excuse and again, if you are a desperate attorney trying to defend your client you are saying this to excuse the obvious truth of what transpired!

What actually happened during this trash trek together? Why not release your phone records if you have nothing to hide and you are innocent, Michelle? You plead innocent, your sisters and parents keep speaking to the press after hearings claiming your innocence, right? Then hand over your phone, computers etc. IF you are innocent. What are you hiding? They won’t release anything that is not case-related so no worries there. Hand it over John. She’s innocent, right?

Bloody evidence! Bloody bra cut right down the middle, bloody Vineyard Vines striped shirt cut right down the middle, mop that Michelle Troconis conveniently brought to clean a house that had never been lived in, by the way, they have a regularhouse cleaner and it isn’t Michelle. There were tied bloody garbage bags, bloody ponchos. Not one poncho. Two ponchos. One hooded, one not hooded.

Think people. You are here to think.

Moo

 

[afitzy]

For those interested in reading more about the data issues with cell towers and cell phones here is the FBI report in pdf form that was contained in the fantastic Vice Article posted above by @Aquarian :

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

The slide presentation does a great job of explaining exactly what info is available and also details retention information for each of the main cell providers (posted previously by me above).

MOO