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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks like hardball from the State to put a pin into the "FD is winning" argument might be in play.....

Curious how they are bringing Atty Meehan given what was found regarding his behaviour by Family Court.....

MOO
Replying to myself.

Think we are seeing a brilliant "panther like" move by the State.

The MT public statements and the Troconis crew are being specifically referenced!

MO)
 
State proffers -- State does not plan to ask the 3rd party witness (Meehan) about the children's health or well-being.

State wishes to elicit testimony from the guardian ad litem the history of visitation restrictions imposed on both FD and the defendant.

State also wants to have witness testify to a phone call between him and FD and the defendant, goes to their states of mind.

State doesn't intend to query on the contents of the custody report, but she does want to introduce testimony to show that things were not going well for FD.
 
Judge is asking the State how they can query the third party witness without encroaching into the custody report.

State says she doesn't need to go into the content of the report. She wants to elicit the history of contention, FD's state of mind over 18 months.
 
Atty Manning is stalking and pouncing like a panther on argument of Defence overstepping on the issue of "State of Mind of FD and MT".

IMO this issue was created by Defence hyperbole on the entire issue of 'winning' and if they had just left this issue by the side this direction might not be needed. But, Defence opened this door and now State's offer will put a total 'pin' in the status of state of mind of MT and FD.

So agree as its what we have been chatting about here for 4 years here.

MOO
 
Specifically Atty Manning wants Mehan to testify to FD's state of mind going into the custody report hearing and then his state of mind leaving that hearing. State alludes a marked difference in his state of mind IMO
 
Judge does not want to use a cliche -- doesn't want to walk a razor's edge.

He is worried about anything that exposes the custody report.

Summarizes the State's position: questioning the third party witness for his observations of FD and the defendant's frames of mine
 
The 'reaction' of the children that Defence Counsel is talking about is severe psychological damage per the Family Court. To see this damage diminished by Defence Counsel is OFFENSIVE and FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

What nonsense from Defence Counsel and lots of spaghetti flying around here imo.

MOO
 
JS says FD was delighted with the report.

JS says there was movement toward intergating the defendant and her daughter into the visitation agreement.

JS says he has no intention of asking anything about the children, their health, anything they said.
 
He is now claiming the Unfinished Report from DR Hermann had to do with lack of payment imo is factually incorrect. Judge Heller tossed the report as it was unfinished and DR Hermann would not testify iirc.
MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
603
Total visitors
738

Forum statistics

Threads
608,267
Messages
18,236,967
Members
234,327
Latest member
EmilyShaul2
Back
Top