CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #64

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
MOO

I think MT was not happy that FD sprung a dinner party on her.

I think MT, like the guests, thought there'd be rug business, then dinner in Avon.

FD was.... frenetic? Couldn't go out to dinner, why? Why was it important to stay at 4 JC? Not eat out. Why two separate outings?

So fishy. For so many reasons.

I wonder what vehicle he left in. I wonder how he returned? No one probably saw how he came back....
Maybe he was waiting on a call or text- thus the second time he left the party. Can’t do that so easily while out to dinner.
 
Also looking very obvi why they did not go to a restaurant.
How was Fotis going to pop out or make an excuse to leave the restaurant and come back. No reason to pick up meat if you are out eating sushi…and he needed to rendezvous vous with Kent.
So far I think MT should get a refund from Schoenhorn. Granted Shoe does not have much to work with but this is not going well for his client. Imo.
 
JS is whining. Part and parcel of the defense, what FD was telling people.

JS says it negates MT thinking the divorce was going on and on and on.

[This doesn't exonerate MT! What could be better for FD than for him to rule himself -- to kill the divorce once and for all?]
 
The State can discredit all this “jovial, no murder on anyone’s mind” nonsense but we’ve got evidence of planning - FD wondering about cameras at NC, arriving early for supervised visitation, telling PG not to come to JC on the morning of the 24th because he was meeting his divorce lawyer …
 
State asks if anything occurred that she questioned in hindsight....

Witness chokes up...

JS is objecting but he's the one who introduced hindsight, up until today...

Court: hindsight relative to 5/23 is admissible--

In hindsight what stands out is the dichotomy was the positivity of that evening with what happened after...
 
Mrs Reich wasn't asked directly about the custody report. She brought it up in answer to a question, and looked genuinely taken aback when the P objected. IMO Almost as though she'd been encouraged by the P to mention it and was therefore surprised that it prompted an objection.

ETA encourage by the D (not the P)
 
JS: was he optimistic? About what was happening in court? That he'd be spending more time with his children?

[Is JS trying to make the State's case? Killing Jennifer WAS FD's plan for getting the children('s money).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
459
Total visitors
535

Forum statistics

Threads
608,240
Messages
18,236,716
Members
234,325
Latest member
davenotwayne
Back
Top