Don’t know if anyone followed the Durst trial, but Loftus was a defense witness in this high profile case. Here’s her being cross examined…if you want to get a look at what JS described her as “probably the most preeminent expert in the country on memory and things that affect memory,”
CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #64
- Thread starter doodles1211
- Start date
- Status
Honestly, with how much leniency that she was given prior to the trial, I doubt they are tracking her. The monitor should have never been allowed to come off given all the lies in her interviews. Also, it will not surprise me at all if she tries something more stupid than the computer thing (like fleeing). She is the world champion of lying and getting caught lying.
lucegirl
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2013
- Messages
- 547
- Reaction score
- 5,845
Good evening!
This is the first half of my jury-facing impressions (what would a juror think about MT’s 5/24 conduct/role/culpability at this point in the trial?) (also including “my color commentary”; phones and cameras don’t lie!) AMOO
After finally finishing the third interview, it dawned on me (and I have no doubt on most of you), that the State organized its case to put everything that LE knew, before it conducted the third MT interview, in front of the jury before the jury saw the third MT interview yesterday - such that the jury is “in the shoes” of law-enforcement, as if the jury is asking the defendant the questions in the third interview themselves, and hearing MT’s lies in real time with the benefit of a lot of facts in evidence that contradict her responses.
I was kind of starting to accept a certain media theme as far as the “nothing burger” case against MT - the State looks disorganized - blah blah. But the State’s timeline is massive and multilayered, and in many cases anchored by irrefutable electronic/video/cellular evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt IMO)(like in Murdaugh - uhm, yes siree, you were at the kennel, Alick ).
The D’s defense is essentially that MT was totally **clueless** about the whole deal. The D, and the pro-D media, love their innocent explanations. But the innocent explanations do not hold water against reality when you line them up (or weigh evidence like the jury will be instructed) and look at everything cumulatively.
The Jury will be instructed on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences. They will also be instructed about “credibility” of D - something the judge has highlighted a whole bunch as the actual issue at hand - “this is not about cell towers, it’s about this defendant’s credibility…”. Ouch.
I’m trying to put myself in the jury box; they only have pen and paper; no FBI tools (but they will get it in the jury room). They have to be able to sort out what is relevant and what is weightier to the exclusion of other evidence. So this is just a hypothetical mindset of a juror - trying to find truth amidst so much extraneous clutter and noise (horns).
MT’s Early Morning Activities on 5/24
She admits FD was not in bed (or shower) when she awakes at 6:30am - 6:40am which means she is the only person in the house (except daughter).
FD’s phone is placed at house by cell data from 5:34 am - 12:22 pm.
Within 5 minutes of her waking up, MT is “manipulating” FD’s phone which means the phone is recording user driven events that only a human could have made. If you isolate just the events that can only occur by human manipulation - there is a clear picture of MT literally sitting on top of FD’s phone all morning. Go back and listen to Attorney Manning’s presentation of the cell expert testimony- “Sir, is this another manipulation event that required a user to interact with the phone.”
All of the following manipulations are only the logical actions of MT (no reasonable doubt IMO):
6:45 am Unlocked
6:45 am Orientation change
6:46 am Orientation change
7:01 am Orientation change
7:01 am Unlocked
7:00 am - 8:00am 44 meters/ 66 steps
8:17 am Unlocked
8:26 am - 17 second incoming Andreas call answered
8:26 am - audio output speaker of Andreas call
8:31 am Orientation Change
8:31 am Unlocked
So between 6:44 am and 8:31 am she does not put FD’s phone down (except for the school drop - and she knows the phone has to stay at the house). Once back home, she is watching the missed calls on FD’s phone. She carries FD’s phone around the house. She is glued to it. She keeps unlocking his phone (like someone refreshing a computer screen in anticipation of something urgent). She sees all the activity. She is screening calls, waiting for the alibi call. Her electronic fingerprints are all over the place.
In her third version of the early morning- she didn’t pay any attention to FD’s phone (until it startled her in the office at 8:26 am). Just a mundane school day morning is her innocent “cover”. She was showering, getting ready, making strawberries, toast and Nutella. But she is so preoccupied with FD’s phone, and the impending Greek phone alibi call, that she forgets to make sure her daughter has sunscreen before dropping her off at school before 8:00 am.
Reasonable inference - MT knows FD is not home, and she knows what is happening because she is manipulating his phone (phone #1) in parallel with FD’s movements to provide cover. She knows which calls to take and which not to take. She knows to leave the phone behind for the school drop. Boom. Prior knowledge before the murder and overt acts to establish FD alibi.
Alibi Call
So in her third version, MT comes back to the house from school drop, goes to the office (because she has to print return labels for dresses from Lord & Taylor and certainly not to receive an alibi call at 8:26 am) and poof “Maywhinnie” is there in the office! (And there are sooooo many glass tables - inside and out). And out of literally nowhere FD’s phone “is there” by her computer, near the Lord & Taylor labels, on FD’s desk (“the square one”).
Then, as she is supposedly correcting her earlier lie from a prior interview (that she never saw/manipulated FD’s phone that morning), LE (and now the jury) catch her in a NEW lie. LE: “Was this the first time you saw FD’s phone that morning, in the office, (and not at 6:44 am when you started manipulating the phone - before you made toast…)? You didn’t see the phone in the bedroom when you went to turn off the alarm?”
Reasonable inference - boom again. The jury is now watching her lie to LE (knowing she is lying because of the prior phone manipulation testimony). She is also lying to the jury in real time during their viewing of the third interview. Juries do not like lies. She acts flustered by LE’s question - knowing full well she’s caught in another lie, and her fumbling around isn’t confusion, memory loss, or hunger; it is her realizing (panicking) that she is busted. This isn’t innocent behavior.
Suddenly, after arriving home from the school drop, and encountering KW in the office near FD’s phone, FD’s phone rings at 8:26 am (she is ready because she manipulated (unlocked) the phone at 8:17 am). She does not offer to LE that the FD’s phone rang. LE is starting to refer to their ginormous chart. LE: “And did FD’s phone then ring?” (Objection. Leading!). She says Kent is suddenly moving around the glass table. He is asking her “are you going to pick that up”, more flustering, and then static on the phone, “Hellloooooooo … Andreas is that you?”
Reasonable inference - she was waiting for the call because she found a way to be with the phone, unlock it right before the call, take the call for just long enough to register the call without having to stay on long enough to have an actual conversation that would not need explaining later.
After the Alibi Call and Just Before “Lunch”
She leaves 4JC, straight away, after the static-y call from Greece, to drive around. Lots of calls - called mom, dad, sister. Purses, rugs, supermarket.
Meanwhile, in the digital world, her phone is connecting with FD’s second phone, enroute from the crime scene.
Reasonable inference - if they are chatting away by phone right before lunch, 4 times, why aren’t they planning what leftovers to eat? She could have been warming up the meat and potatoes, so it would be ready, so they could soon thereafter start the cleaning projects at 80MS. But she doesn’t make lunch (even though they have lunch together everyday) and instead - she goes to the POND - but there is no one to pull her!!?
She is then back home at (11:52 am) in plenty of time to be surprised by FD, in the flesh (but not a tie), at 1:31 pm, yelling from atop the stairs, down to her, about lunch. (Oh there you are, FD! How did you get here?)
But there is no lunch (or romantic balcony scene) because they are both on video at 1:36 pm, her in a White Jeep, entering 80 MS (coming from the direction of 4JC) followed by him the Black Suburban with Thule and the FORE magnetic signage.
And we are only mid-day before 1) the driving madness; 2) 3 fires; 3) Starbucks; and 4) trash dumping.
I am completely fine if anyone wants to edit, add to, subtract, add, modify or anything to make sense of this madness!
This is the first half of my jury-facing impressions (what would a juror think about MT’s 5/24 conduct/role/culpability at this point in the trial?) (also including “my color commentary”; phones and cameras don’t lie!) AMOO
After finally finishing the third interview, it dawned on me (and I have no doubt on most of you), that the State organized its case to put everything that LE knew, before it conducted the third MT interview, in front of the jury before the jury saw the third MT interview yesterday - such that the jury is “in the shoes” of law-enforcement, as if the jury is asking the defendant the questions in the third interview themselves, and hearing MT’s lies in real time with the benefit of a lot of facts in evidence that contradict her responses.
I was kind of starting to accept a certain media theme as far as the “nothing burger” case against MT - the State looks disorganized - blah blah. But the State’s timeline is massive and multilayered, and in many cases anchored by irrefutable electronic/video/cellular evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt IMO)(like in Murdaugh - uhm, yes siree, you were at the kennel, Alick ).
The D’s defense is essentially that MT was totally **clueless** about the whole deal. The D, and the pro-D media, love their innocent explanations. But the innocent explanations do not hold water against reality when you line them up (or weigh evidence like the jury will be instructed) and look at everything cumulatively.
The Jury will be instructed on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences. They will also be instructed about “credibility” of D - something the judge has highlighted a whole bunch as the actual issue at hand - “this is not about cell towers, it’s about this defendant’s credibility…”. Ouch.
I’m trying to put myself in the jury box; they only have pen and paper; no FBI tools (but they will get it in the jury room). They have to be able to sort out what is relevant and what is weightier to the exclusion of other evidence. So this is just a hypothetical mindset of a juror - trying to find truth amidst so much extraneous clutter and noise (horns).
MT’s Early Morning Activities on 5/24
She admits FD was not in bed (or shower) when she awakes at 6:30am - 6:40am which means she is the only person in the house (except daughter).
FD’s phone is placed at house by cell data from 5:34 am - 12:22 pm.
Within 5 minutes of her waking up, MT is “manipulating” FD’s phone which means the phone is recording user driven events that only a human could have made. If you isolate just the events that can only occur by human manipulation - there is a clear picture of MT literally sitting on top of FD’s phone all morning. Go back and listen to Attorney Manning’s presentation of the cell expert testimony- “Sir, is this another manipulation event that required a user to interact with the phone.”
All of the following manipulations are only the logical actions of MT (no reasonable doubt IMO):
6:45 am Unlocked
6:45 am Orientation change
6:46 am Orientation change
7:01 am Orientation change
7:01 am Unlocked
7:00 am - 8:00am 44 meters/ 66 steps
8:17 am Unlocked
8:26 am - 17 second incoming Andreas call answered
8:26 am - audio output speaker of Andreas call
8:31 am Orientation Change
8:31 am Unlocked
So between 6:44 am and 8:31 am she does not put FD’s phone down (except for the school drop - and she knows the phone has to stay at the house). Once back home, she is watching the missed calls on FD’s phone. She carries FD’s phone around the house. She is glued to it. She keeps unlocking his phone (like someone refreshing a computer screen in anticipation of something urgent). She sees all the activity. She is screening calls, waiting for the alibi call. Her electronic fingerprints are all over the place.
In her third version of the early morning- she didn’t pay any attention to FD’s phone (until it startled her in the office at 8:26 am). Just a mundane school day morning is her innocent “cover”. She was showering, getting ready, making strawberries, toast and Nutella. But she is so preoccupied with FD’s phone, and the impending Greek phone alibi call, that she forgets to make sure her daughter has sunscreen before dropping her off at school before 8:00 am.
Reasonable inference - MT knows FD is not home, and she knows what is happening because she is manipulating his phone (phone #1) in parallel with FD’s movements to provide cover. She knows which calls to take and which not to take. She knows to leave the phone behind for the school drop. Boom. Prior knowledge before the murder and overt acts to establish FD alibi.
Alibi Call
So in her third version, MT comes back to the house from school drop, goes to the office (because she has to print return labels for dresses from Lord & Taylor and certainly not to receive an alibi call at 8:26 am) and poof “Maywhinnie” is there in the office! (And there are sooooo many glass tables - inside and out). And out of literally nowhere FD’s phone “is there” by her computer, near the Lord & Taylor labels, on FD’s desk (“the square one”).
Then, as she is supposedly correcting her earlier lie from a prior interview (that she never saw/manipulated FD’s phone that morning), LE (and now the jury) catch her in a NEW lie. LE: “Was this the first time you saw FD’s phone that morning, in the office, (and not at 6:44 am when you started manipulating the phone - before you made toast…)? You didn’t see the phone in the bedroom when you went to turn off the alarm?”
Reasonable inference - boom again. The jury is now watching her lie to LE (knowing she is lying because of the prior phone manipulation testimony). She is also lying to the jury in real time during their viewing of the third interview. Juries do not like lies. She acts flustered by LE’s question - knowing full well she’s caught in another lie, and her fumbling around isn’t confusion, memory loss, or hunger; it is her realizing (panicking) that she is busted. This isn’t innocent behavior.
Suddenly, after arriving home from the school drop, and encountering KW in the office near FD’s phone, FD’s phone rings at 8:26 am (she is ready because she manipulated (unlocked) the phone at 8:17 am). She does not offer to LE that the FD’s phone rang. LE is starting to refer to their ginormous chart. LE: “And did FD’s phone then ring?” (Objection. Leading!). She says Kent is suddenly moving around the glass table. He is asking her “are you going to pick that up”, more flustering, and then static on the phone, “Hellloooooooo … Andreas is that you?”
Reasonable inference - she was waiting for the call because she found a way to be with the phone, unlock it right before the call, take the call for just long enough to register the call without having to stay on long enough to have an actual conversation that would not need explaining later.
After the Alibi Call and Just Before “Lunch”
She leaves 4JC, straight away, after the static-y call from Greece, to drive around. Lots of calls - called mom, dad, sister. Purses, rugs, supermarket.
Meanwhile, in the digital world, her phone is connecting with FD’s second phone, enroute from the crime scene.
Reasonable inference - if they are chatting away by phone right before lunch, 4 times, why aren’t they planning what leftovers to eat? She could have been warming up the meat and potatoes, so it would be ready, so they could soon thereafter start the cleaning projects at 80MS. But she doesn’t make lunch (even though they have lunch together everyday) and instead - she goes to the POND - but there is no one to pull her!!?
She is then back home at (11:52 am) in plenty of time to be surprised by FD, in the flesh (but not a tie), at 1:31 pm, yelling from atop the stairs, down to her, about lunch. (Oh there you are, FD! How did you get here?)
But there is no lunch (or romantic balcony scene) because they are both on video at 1:36 pm, her in a White Jeep, entering 80 MS (coming from the direction of 4JC) followed by him the Black Suburban with Thule and the FORE magnetic signage.
And we are only mid-day before 1) the driving madness; 2) 3 fires; 3) Starbucks; and 4) trash dumping.
I am completely fine if anyone wants to edit, add to, subtract, add, modify or anything to make sense of this madness!
DeDee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 7,344
- Reaction score
- 42,092
The mulch piles were thoroughly searched. It was an obvious place to look due to location.
I suppose Fotis didn't have any fresh concrete delivered to any properties.
Is this possible: Jennifer was on top of the mountain, Avon Mountain. Is it isolated? Place a chunk or two of fresh meat nearby to attract wild animals such as black bears, cougars, wolves, foxes. Black Bear Sighted in New Canaan As Wildlife Activity Increases [UPDATED]
What about using an ice chest to transfer Jennifer, perhaps by KM, to some place because thus far, the phone and GPS data doesn't support MT, JD or PG as having the opportunity to secrete a body? If the prepared grave, although foiled, was going to be used, who would take her there? Did that same person hide Jennifer in the end? If so, when? Is there another vehicle involved that delivered Jennifer to her location after death?
Mimi in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2018
- Messages
- 932
- Reaction score
- 11,816
On eBay - seller says it’s FD own Brown yearbook from his Farmington home clear-out. His photo is there & name spelled slightly differently.
Fotis Dulos, Murder Suspect in 1989 Liber Brunensis, Brown U Providence RI Yrbk | eBay
TITLE :LIBER BRUNENSIS. (All of this info is available on line through Google). SCHOOL or COLLEGE : Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Where specific condition issues require we will let you know about them.www.ebay.co.uk
View attachment 484116
This looks like a guy on the verge of his first kill.
Mimi in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2018
- Messages
- 932
- Reaction score
- 11,816
MOOOn eBay - seller says it’s FD own Brown yearbook from his Farmington home clear-out. His photo is there & name spelled slightly differently.
Fotis Dulos, Murder Suspect in 1989 Liber Brunensis, Brown U Providence RI Yrbk | eBay
TITLE :LIBER BRUNENSIS. (All of this info is available on line through Google). SCHOOL or COLLEGE : Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Where specific condition issues require we will let you know about them.www.ebay.co.uk
View attachment 484116
Looks like a psychopath on the verge of his first kill.
afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
Thanks for this instructive video. This professor is a professional witness for the defence always it seems and has a long history of testifying in high profile cases. Her rate at the time of the Durst case was $700/hr plus expenses.
I loved the quote from the trial footage, “if the me too movement had a top 10 hit list wouldn’t you be on it?”!
Buckle up folks…
Moo
Last edited:
afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
Thanks for wonderful framework.
I’m rewatching interview 3 today and if I see anything I will update but so far I think you are bang on. Your suggestion of watching it in small chunks did the trick as otherwise the babbling and distraction and deception is mind numbing. I went back to the beginning of interview 3 so it could try to track the lies between the three interviews. I wish we had Det Kimball spreadsheet but the lies are focused in a few same areas which makes tracking them easier. I wish we also had written transcript but not surprisingly I believe defence would not agree.
Save yourself time by not reading press or listening to msm networks in this case. We have been dealing with this issue for 4 years and the issue is State hasn’t ever spoken about MT or this trial and they won’t. Not even leaks from state. The info in the media is from family and defence and also contains views from court which imo depending on the source are sometimes incorrect or misleading. Few of the media outlets post documents but Marisa alter from channel 12 has and she is usually factually correct. NBC CT is defence mouthpiece and Shannon miller speaks for the family. Fox61 sticks to Court docs and facts generally. Listen or read the rest at your own risk. Just trying to save you time.
My current fixation is completing the car parade and the 2015 suburban, figuring out how when MT Yukon rental was returned, KM location fixes and timeline (we’ve never seen this), data from Jeep Cherokee to
Document MT movement relative to her phone.
Back later after I’m done listening. Thank you for this jury perspective as I’ve been concerned about them and this presentation style.
Moo
Last edited:
afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
If anyone runs into the SA article about the 2015 suburban and its seizure by LE in would appreciate it. Trying to confirm that the shop doing the repairs after MT crash reported the vehicle to LE and get this date as it would be the start date of the black Chevy Tahoe rental that I cannot see being returned.
Thanks
Thanks
Last edited:
afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
One of the articles about 2015 suburban in new canaan
Quotes from article:
The Suburban was caught on video parked on Thurton Drive, a quiet cul de sac less than a half-mile long with many new large affluent homes and expansive lawns. The back of the Welles Lane home where Jennifer Dulos lived can be seen through the trees from the wide turn-around at the end of the road.
According to residents in the area, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in the neighborhood four times to discuss the Suburban and local police were also there twice.
One woman, who did not want to be identified, said New Canaan Police visited her home twice in the days following the incident. She said police originally asked for security footage from 7 p.m. May 23 through the following evening, and then they returned and asked for all of her available footage
Testimony shows evidence seized from Fotis Dulos' vehicles, properties in days after Jennifer's disappearance | Troconis trial
Jurors listened to testimony surrounding the properties and vehicles linked to Jennifer's disappearance.
www.fox61.com
Baby baby Jane
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2019
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 7,805
I would think that MT would be so hungry by 1:31, and that fact she hasn’t even started a lunch is weird (just making Nicole’s bed for hours). And that FD, who has been out of the house since maybe/usually/typically/I think before 6:30 am, isn’t hungry/angry that there isn’t a hot lunch ready. I’m not being stereotyping here, but if someone is usually joining you for lunch usually/typically 12-1, and u are home, at it’s 1:30 - it’s odd you don’t have it ready-ish & you are calling/texting - where are u? They should both be starving. Murderously hungry.
Lunch prep aside: I think they have her for conspiracy based on 6:30 am to lunch. MT carrying the phone around when FD is not home to keep it looking like he is home when she knows he not, answering that one call. At 3rd interview, she admits he’s not home but says phone in his office whole time, but evidence shows she was carrying it around.
That the Gotcha for conspiracy.
The smoke just excellent because there is just not logical explanation. And yes, she is “I’m naked ” because she stripped down and burned her evidence clothes.
Baby baby Jane
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2019
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 7,805
I can only conclude that KM/FD had a 3rd party involved in the disposal. Another friend/colleague/associate - someone just unconnected to FD, paid to do a collect & dispose job miles and miles away.
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 12,115
- Reaction score
- 209,920
FD had photos of JFd's security lights. Guessing that's where he parked to do his recon in the days/weeks prior to 5/24. With altered plates.One of the articles about 2015 suburban in new canaan
Quotes from article:
The Suburban was caught on video parked on Thurton Drive, a quiet cul de sac less than a half-mile long with many new large affluent homes and expansive lawns. The back of the Welles Lane home where Jennifer Dulos lived can be seen through the trees from the wide turn-around at the end of the road.
According to residents in the area, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in the neighborhood four times to discuss the Suburban and local police were also there twice.
One woman, who did not want to be identified, said New Canaan Police visited her home twice in the days following the incident. She said police originally asked for security footage from 7 p.m. May 23 through the following evening, and then they returned and asked for all of her available footage
Testimony shows evidence seized from Fotis Dulos' vehicles, properties in days after Jennifer's disappearance | Troconis trial
Jurors listened to testimony surrounding the properties and vehicles linked to Jennifer's disappearance.
JMO
Baby baby Jane
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2019
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 7,805
or is KM going to be person moving the FD phone around the office (except for the time to/from school).
pernickety
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,019
- Reaction score
- 11,367
The eyes.
afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
I believe the SA article said it was 4/23 so day before murder.
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 12,115
- Reaction score
- 209,920
If KM was at 4 JC at all that morning (and I have serious doubts), perhaps he left in the Suburban for NC when things went south.
You know what MT never said she saw at 4 JC? KM's vehicle.
KM is like an invisible agent because his involvement has been kept masterfully quiet by the Prosecution. But he's been charged so he was somewhere through all this.
My guess, he got the Suburban the night before. Maybe was in and out at 4 JC just long enough to have his personal vehicle recorded on the neighbor's security camera but I don't think he was still there even when the 8:26 call came in.
I think he was an essential party in NC between 9:30 and 10:30/11am.
All JMO
pernickety
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,019
- Reaction score
- 11,367
This video might've been snipped. When I saw it in real time it was longer, when MT was avidly listening to Felsen telling her something. Her smile kept growing until it was almost a grin.
afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
I just wanted to place this image back into thread to confirm that Attorney Audrey Felson was looking directly at MT computer screen with the discredited report. This conversation went on for at least 3 min as they chatted through most of the “testimony cross” of Jon Schoenhorn. This image was from right before MT was tapped on the shoulder and closed her laptop. The image had been visible for at least 10 min so far as I can tell and was clearly visible at all times to atty Audrey felson. Moo
- Status