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

[waldojabba]

Contempt hearing in Michelle Troconis’ future, fireworks in courtroom on Day 23 of trial

Things got heated on Day 23 of Michelle Troconis’ trial in connection to the disappearance and presumed death of Jennifer Dulos – first in the morning regarding a contempt hearing, then in the afternoon over whether defense witnesses will be able to testify.

connecticut.news12.com

Schoenhorn also pointed out Fotis Dulos was previously accused of having a copy of the sealed report, which was prohibited, that ended up in the possession of his defense attorney, Norm Pattis.
News 12 pressed Schoenhorn if Troconis has the sealed report.
“To my knowledge, she does not have that report. She did not get it from me, let's put it that way. And that's all I can say,” Schoenhorn responded.

 

[Megnut]

Why would MT be bleaching brand new bathroom fixtures and faucets?

Did the showering duo clean up at 80 MS, hoping to shower the remnants of their busy afternoon down the drain?

Did MT return from 4 JC after one of her excursions with fresh clothing for FD?

Funny how the alibi scripts didn't log the very complicated vehicle ballet, surely those are details you'd want to diagram. Well, if you were being truthful.

What did MT do all afternoon per the script? Nada.

Action packed her morning alibi....

What a bunch of con artists.

JMO

 

[waldojabba]

Contempt hearing in Michelle Troconis’ future, fireworks in courtroom on Day 23 of trial

Things got heated on Day 23 of Michelle Troconis’ trial in connection to the disappearance and presumed death of Jennifer Dulos – first in the morning regarding a contempt hearing, then in the afternoon over whether defense witnesses will be able to testify.

connecticut.news12.com

Schoenhorn also pointed out Fotis Dulos was previously accused of having a copy of the sealed report, which was prohibited, that ended up in the possession of his defense attorney, Norm Pattis.
News 12 pressed Schoenhorn if Troconis has the sealed report.
“To my knowledge, she does not have that report. She did not get it from me, let's put it that way. And that's all I can say,” Schoenhorn responded.

Replying to myself about the same article
Also of note from JS on courthouse steps :
“Whatever they're trying to claim from a couple of puffs of white smoke at various times on a very windy day, again it's pure speculation,” Schoenhorn said outside the courthouse.
…
“It is something that she did irregularly, and in fact, apparently, and again I don't have personal knowledge of this, in South American culture apparently, having fires in your fireplace is a social activity. It's something one does on a regular basis. But I can't personally attest to that fact,” Schoenhorn said.”

 

[Megnut]

Replying to myself about the same article
Also of note from JS on courthouse steps :
“Whatever they're trying to claim from a couple of puffs of white smoke at various times on a very windy day, again it's pure speculation,” Schoenhorn said outside the courthouse.
…
“It is something that she did irregularly, and in fact, apparently, and again I don't have personal knowledge of this, in South American culture apparently, having fires in your fireplace is a social activity. It's something one does on a regular basis. But I can't personally attest to that fact,” Schoenhorn said.”

Snort.

She was having intermittent, cultural, social fires by herself, just so happened to be on 5/24.....

But no smoke, no fire included in the timeline....

JS should learn the economy of saying less. A lot less.

Suppose'n he got his homeworks done last night?

 

[Megnut]

MOO

So....presuming MT (emp-ty of moral character) was the driver of the Cherokee, Michi is literally the match that lit the fire. Fitting. I believe she's the match that lit Fotis.

You know, if they can place her at Home Depot purchasing ponchos and such before ever speaking to FD that day, then we've got ourselves conspiracy to murder.

Smoked.

 

[Ruminations]

@afitzy

Hussey is in the “reasonable doubt” camp in terms of whether the State has met its burden of proof. He thinks there is reasonable doubt with respect to:

1) MT’s role in the 5/24 driving madness because it’s consistent with the selling of 80 MS - the cleaning is reasonably innocent and because the house is over 11,000 sq ft - why should we assume she saw FD cleaning up a murder in another part of the house.

My thought is the jury will look at all the evidence. It gets harder to buy the innocent cleaning for an open house story when you look at all the evidence. The State doesn’t have to disprove MT’s cleaning story with video evidence of what she was really doing - they can prove it by impeaching MT’s credibility. She is the only source of the cleaning story, and she is a liar. Why should we the jury accept her story?

2) he thinks the “where there is smoke there is fire” logic isn’t strong enough to overcome beyond a reasonable doubt; he says often jurors believe the defendant committed the crime- but it’s not the same as the State proving it.

He is stirring the circumstantial evidence pot here - many murderers are convicted via circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not weak evidence. Do not even get me started on this topic. But the smoke/fire not enough example falls very, very flat after the actual smoke we saw today. It is a reasonable inference that where there is smoke there is fire. In fact - can you have smoke without fire? It’s the exact analogy they use in some circumstantial jury instructions - you don’t need proof of the fact that it rained over night if you wake up to puddles. The rain is an inferred fact from the actual fact of the puddles. There is NO innocent explanation for 3 fires over Memorial Day Weekend on the same day Jennifer goes missing, and MT is put at the house during the fires, when she said she was eating lunch with FD. It’s just not rational. When that golden retriever or lab walked across the 1JC driveway during the THIRD fire - I thought “Oh thanks Bubba for activating the motion sensor to make sure the defendant was caught setting a fire and lying about it.”

3) He threw out the Plan B theory - PG is the real co-conspirator. MT was “just sitting in a red truck randomly/innocently. She didn’t pull the seats out. He wasn’t charged. She didn’t get an immunity deal.” Weak IMO!

3) he did agree with the judge that there is enough evidence of a murder such that the ME testimony wouldn’t add much - but is happy to throw that bone in the mix because it only relates to FD.

Other Weak Comments:

He hinted the State was motivated to go after MT because they were so invested with the case and FD’s suicide made it necessary for them to go after MT.

If she really knew anything, or something, so would have provided the information. She wouldn’t risk jail because she is a mom.

Said if he were D Counsel he’d be feeling great going into the weekend. Okay…

Thanks! I don't know who Hussey is, but that was a nice expression of the most favorable defense situation as it stands.

I like watching Lawyer Lee's take on this trial because she appears to have started following the case deeply upon the trial's commencement. That means she is primarily focused on the evidence presented to the jury. Partly because it's what she is learning first for the most part, and partly because of her expertise.

I happen to be of the opinion that Michelle Troconis' best defense was the truth, shared with LE in the most favorable way with her attorney. I think she did conspire to murder. "Luckily" she was surrounded by such deeply evil co-conspirators that her testimony against them probably could have bought her a good legal deal. And a great attorney, well-versed in coercive control, could have argued that Fotis was so cunning as to make sure she did know enough to bring her down legally with him, but not enough to bring him down further than necessary. (This would come in if, for instance, she really doesn't know where the body is.)

It's obvious from the LE interviews she woukd have had a strong hand to play, being that even they were begging her to take that route. In fact, instead of developing any kind of awareness of her similar situation to Jennifer, she continues to bully her and pile on the abuse post-mortem, to the point of earning a contempt of court hearing. It's unbelievable!

But she didn't. Now, unless this Hussey person is right, she's going down with no mercy. She had so many offers of mercy and turned them all down

MOO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Contempt hearing in Michelle Troconis’ future, fireworks in courtroom on Day 23 of trial

Things got heated on Day 23 of Michelle Troconis’ trial in connection to the disappearance and presumed death of Jennifer Dulos – first in the morning regarding a contempt hearing, then in the afternoon over whether defense witnesses will be able to testify.

connecticut.news12.com

Schoenhorn also pointed out Fotis Dulos was previously accused of having a copy of the sealed report, which was prohibited, that ended up in the possession of his defense attorney, Norm Pattis.
News 12 pressed Schoenhorn if Troconis has the sealed report.
“To my knowledge, she does not have that report. She did not get it from me, let's put it that way. And that's all I can say,” Schoenhorn responded.

Seems IMO reporter’s follow up questions should have been: Do you have a copy of it? And if so where and in what form(s)? And then, does your co-counsel have same? And final from where did you obtain the report? MOO

 

[nodamselindistress]

Do these pro-defense attorney analysts seem to think JS is doing a good job? I am curious how his colleagues see him and whether my perception that he is lazy and unprepared is accurate. He seeminly raises all kinds of objections to info he wants kept out but cannot seem to back it up and often reverts to mischaracterizations which the prosecutors pounce on.

 

[afitzy]

@afitzy

Regarding cell phone seizures …

There is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case on the topic - it’s factually different because the situation is a warrantless seizure of phone pursuant to an arrest. But it’s a good read - lots of history about exigent circumstances and how exigency is different when you look at drugs being flushed down the toilet versus a cell phone - a repository for a wealth of personal data. Riley v. California - Harvard Law Review The Supreme Court carved out a niche of considerations regarding exigency and cell phones that place privacy interests as a major competing factor against exigency. There are lots of exceptions - kidnapping of minors for example is per se exigent.

FD arguably consented to a warrantless search because he gave LE the phone and password, at least initially. And at that particular moment - the exigency of Jennifer possibly being alive was more likely than a week later.

I haven’t read the judge’s decision on the granting of motion to suppress MT phone, but I think the privacy issues tipped the scale.

Frustrating - no question about it.

@lucegirl, Harvard law article was interesting so thank you for the link. I still have to admit to being concerned for law enforcement trying to preserve evidence while also keeping themselves safe as the cell phone rules on seizure sure seem complex!

Not sure SCOTUS did anything with its ruling to either make the issue easier to understand or for law enforcement to execute but I guess practicalities aren’t really a priority of the Court so I guess we will deal with these seizure arguments as a matter of course.

I struggle with the issue of MT phone seizure in the context that allowing her to keep her phone imo virtually ensures her wiping it and deleting cloud account as her next step that night iirc at 4Jx was for she and FD to drive to litchfield which would have been 40 min she had outside the view of law enforcement to delete data and cloud and certainly destroy the phone if she wanted.

I know judge r tossed the mt phone based on privacy but it just seems that the entire situation when 4Jx was exigent. But I think the other issue was that there was over a week between when first warrant was approved and raid on 4jx so if CSP had simply reviewed the first warrant prior to or even at the raid that the new search warrant could have been obtained.

The 4Jx situation was somewhat different than FD phone being taken at NCPD as that was at the time of disappearance and police had evidence in garage to have them be suspicious of FD and the circumstances surrounding the disappearance too.
Moo

 

[pernickety]

Contempt hearing in Michelle Troconis’ future, fireworks in courtroom on Day 23 of trial

Things got heated on Day 23 of Michelle Troconis’ trial in connection to the disappearance and presumed death of Jennifer Dulos – first in the morning regarding a contempt hearing, then in the afternoon over whether defense witnesses will be able to testify.

connecticut.news12.com

Schoenhorn also pointed out Fotis Dulos was previously accused of having a copy of the sealed report, which was prohibited, that ended up in the possession of his defense attorney, Norm Pattis.
News 12 pressed Schoenhorn if Troconis has the sealed report.
“To my knowledge, she does not have that report. She did not get it from me, let's put it that way. And that's all I can say,” Schoenhorn responded.

"Schoenhorn also pointed out Fotis Dulos was previously accused of having a copy of the sealed report, which was prohibited, that ended up in the possession of his defense attorney, Norm Pattis."

Insinuation?

 

[BadRx]

I’ve read elsewhere this morning that MT has deleted her trial tweets in the past day or two. I never looked for her or her family’s accounts so don’t know if this is true. But if it is she’s trying to CYA, which never works on what had been posted on the internet!

 

[afitzy]

Do these pro-defense attorney analysts seem to think JS is doing a good job? I am curious how his colleagues see him and whether my perception that he is lazy and unprepared is accurate. He seeminly raises all kinds of objections to info he wants kept out but cannot seem to back it up and often reverts to mischaracterizations which the prosecutors pounce on.

Actually Atty Hussey was asked about the courtroom behaviour in the Troconis case
And he called it I believe “unusual”.

It seems like the relationship in the Troconis case between defence and state broke down ages ago as they have been working together for 4 years.

I mean how do you work with someone like Jon Schoenhorn or Audrey felson who seem to have no hesitation not following court orders or proper court procedures? Integrity and trust are impt even in adversarial proceedings and both these attorneys based on what has been going on now for a long time give the state and judge no reason to trust them or their statements imo.

We have seen atty Schoenhorn attempt to horse trade himself out of a standing stipulation order where he himself held onto case related evidence for over a year without following proper procedures for handing it over to law enforcement. We then saw
Atty Audrey felson blatantly disregard the courts orders on the handling of the discredited family court file in her cross of atty Meehan.

Idk, if both attorneys want to flush their integrity and reputation down the toilet for this particular client for the world to see then I suppose it’s their prerogative. But, where I am having issues is to not see consequences for their ongoing egregious behaviour.

Yesterday we saw on live tv atty Audrey felson push her computer over to Defendant AFTER the Judge earlier in the am said no computer for defendant.

Not sure you can do more to give the middle finger to the Judge than this?!?!

Hope judge admonished Felson for this breech and certainly wrong choice too imo!

Moo

 

[pernickety]

I’ve read elsewhere this morning that MT has deleted her trial tweets in the past day or two. I never looked for her or her family’s accounts so don’t know if this is true. But if it is she’s trying to CYA, which never works on what had been posted on the internet!

Violation of the federal Gramm Leach Bliley Act?

 

[marcom]

Reading all the new and very informative posts this morning has me come up with a scary thought. Do we think the T clan have threatened D attorneys if the case doesn’t have a favorable result to MT? Are we seeing hints of panic? This just popped into my head. I don’t think it’s above them…
MOO

 

[Megnut]

Really key point yesterday, tipping to conspiracy.

According to Version 57 of the defendant, that morning FD was not in bed...(conveniently, she said he'd recently been waking early). She says she assumed he was home. Because the Suburban might have been there. Saw his phone in the office.

But this same hissy fitter who hissed a fit over FD being at JFd's house, who finds FD gone, doesn't send him a single censored emoji? No "where are you?" "Are you looking at other womans?" Nothing.

Kinda suggests she knew two things: one, where he was and two, where his phone was.

Foreknowledge.

JMO

 

[afitzy]

"Schoenhorn also pointed out Fotis Dulos was previously accused of having a copy of the sealed report, which was prohibited, that ended up in the possession of his defense attorney, Norm Pattis."

Insinuation?

I think it’s smoke. Pattis has been handcuffed by his civil litigation with GF and imo even he wouldn’t be so stupid as to risk more litigation from her. Pattis did it seem pass the tainted case evidence off to Jon Schoenhorn who sat on it for over a year and he wasn’t punished by the state for that. Judge r also did zero that I heard about on the tainted evidence and he didn’t side with State to dismiss atty Jon Schoenhorn either which was disappointing too imo.

So it seems we have a “go along to get along judge” here on the issue of keeping attorneys in order. Sad but his behaviour on this issue simply told me that he is simply going through the motions of processing this trial because he no doubt drew the short straw in the case assignment process as the prior judges have seemed to run for the hills on this case!

The other thing that cannot be discounted is that MT simply stole the report from one of her attorneys. Images taken from Attorney Schoenhorn office from many of his interviews show zero security in place and no obvious signs of locked places to secure a sealed document. I honestly would put a high probability on this having happened but my pure speculation.

Schoenhorn is simply imo doing what he usually does which is throw blame elsewhere and never take responsibility for his own words and actions. Par for the course imo on his and atty Audrey Felsons brand of what I’m calling “gutter law”. Their behaviour in court has been reprehensible imo and Judge r gave them every benefit of doubt and so to see their client with the sealed report to me is simply more proof of their absolute lack of ethics and unwillingness to comply with court rules.

I honestly don’t know why either of these individuals still have law licenses? Welcome to corrupticut I guess is only explanation I can see. I’ve given up on CT Bar to do anything and CT Judges don’t do anything that I can see to police the matter either. KM is another one to add to the list as his license status iirc is “in suspense”! It’s shocking but it’s Corrupticut and it’s how attorneys behave imo.

Defence is vulnerable on this discredited report issue and Schoenhorn in his comments did everything to point the finger elsewhere. But, I believe it was a well planned stunt by the defence team to taunt supporters of JF and now atty Schoenhorn is hiding behind not seeing anything. It’s kinda like the MT defence so Im guessing his level of knowledge might just be similar to that of MT in the murder of JF!

I do believe both defence attorneys to be complicit here based on what we heard from State yesterday and I hope issue is investigated and if it’s true then they should be punished. It was shameful that episode happened but frankly worse that judge didn’t secure the report and take the computer to protect the victims and reduced entire episode to one of high school rivalries and pettiness.

Frankly I wrote off Judge R after this minimizing statement on the episode as to me it belied zero respect for the issue at hand which was protecting victims and securing the report which he imo did zero on with his ruling. Judge could have issued a longer statement to admonish the gallery and still secure the report but he didn’t and for this I lost total respect. Perhaps he did it in chambers but my guess is that given the obvious integrity issues with both defence counsel that he wanted it all on the record and didn’t trust defence counsel for a chambers conversation. Also he probably couldn’t have the conversation in chambers
as entire issue will need to be investigated and this includes both of MT attorneys, Audrey Felson and Jon Schoenhorn imo.

Atty schoenhorn said also that defendant didn’t get report from him. This simply means he didn’t give it to her but did she take it from his office with him simply leaving it on his desk? I can see this as this is the kind of practitioner he is Imo. Or, did mama a take it from Schoenhorn office
And give it to MT?

Did MT get it from Attorney Felson as so far Atty Audrey Felson had shown zero ability to follow any court orders on the discredited report and had disregarded direct judge admonishments on the topic 5 times that i counted in her cross of Atty Meehan on the Family Court situation. So, we have another atty on the defence team with little professional integrity imo so I could see her letting MT read the report and perhaps even allowing MT to take screen shots too and perhaps that is what was on MT computer screen?

It’s a mess imo but it’s also indicative of the the fact that trust once lost cannot be regained and imo both these defence attorneys have crossed the line one too many times to trust or believe.

It’s all quite sad too as vigorous defence is a cornerstone of our system.

So, we now head into defence presentation imo simply with our hands on our wallets and unable to believe much of anything they or their client put forward.

It’s sad, pathetic and imo was totally avoidable behaviour but it’s sadly where we are with this tragic case.

Moo

 

[Eli9]

Really key point yesterday, tipping to conspiracy.

According to Version 57 of the defendant, that morning FD was not in bed...(conveniently, she said he'd recently been waking early). She says she assumed he was home. Because the Suburban might have been there. Saw his phone in the office.

But this same hissy fitter who hissed a fit over FD being at JFd's house, who finds FD gone, doesn't send him a single censored emoji? No "where are you?" "Are you looking at other womans?" Nothing.

Kinda suggests she knew two things: one, where he was and two, where his phone was.

Foreknowledge.

JMO

Agree. MT had FD under her thumb. But she wasn't bothered by the lack of showering together or that his phone and car were left behind.

 

[Eli9]

I know many of you have voiced your concerns on the traveling laptop of the Defense yesterday, and I may be in the minority here, but I think it's wise to let MT look at the evidence presented in court via her counsel's media. Not to browse around on the contents but to view the exhibits being presented. MOO

 

[afitzy]

Really key point yesterday, tipping to conspiracy.

According to Version 57 of the defendant, that morning FD was not in bed...(conveniently, she said he'd recently been waking early). She says she assumed he was home. Because the Suburban might have been there. Saw his phone in the office.

But this same hissy fitter who hissed a fit over FD being at JFd's house, who finds FD gone, doesn't send him a single censored emoji? No "where are you?" "Are you looking at other womans?" Nothing.

Kinda suggests she knew two things: one, where he was and two, where his phone was.

Foreknowledge.

JMO

I agree!


She kept FD on a tight leash always as he had a wandering eye and then on the day of the murder no usual tracking texts?

That line of questioning by law enforcement was brilliant!

It was also during this line of questioning when atty bowman moved 2’ away from MT iirc and by the end of this line of questioning he was 3’ away and backed into the wall as he couldn’t move any further away imo. He put his relationships on the line to get her opportunity to plead and she refused. I can see why perhaps he walked as he knew after 3 interviews what her number was imo!

Watching atty bowman in the interview told me everything I needed to know on the conspiracy issue.

Seeing the smoke and the car parade was simply the bow that tied it all together.

I just ordered two more cases of hard seltzer to stock up for defence presentation.

Moo

 

[afitzy]

I know many of you have voiced your concerns on the traveling laptop of the Defense yesterday, and I may be in the minority here, but I think it's wise to let MT look at the evidence presented in court via her counsel's media. Not to browse around on the contents but to view the exhibits being presented. MOO

Judge ruled no computer for MT. In CT it is considered a privledge for defendant to have access to electronic devices and by virtue of her behaviour she blew it. It’s a situation that is at total discretion of the Judge.

Defendant has ability to look at the huge screen along with everyone else so she has access to everything jury is seeing.
Moo