CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #65

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
The State used the opportunity to refocus the jury on some of MT’s most deliberate lies. In doing so - whatever she had to offer came off as irrelevant and took a backseat to Defendant’s bold faced lies and ability to lie at will- especially the lies she spun out of whole cloth with no suggestion from LE. The whole “did LE suggest to her she might have thrown away a paper towel with brown stains ….” was super effective. I though the D was going to make hay out of her being tired and hungry and the pressure being applied for hours at a time. That’s a lot easier to maybe understand. Instead the whole memory breakdown and replacement came across as wacky, not very scientific and contrived at least when she tried to apply it MT’s behavior. If I’m a juror - I can spot a lie versus an impaired memory which was a great way to close the cross by the state. I have no doubt that memory loss and impairment is a very real thing, and the study of that important to understand what may be going on within a person - but whatever she was talking about didn’t fit the facts of this case and came across as more window dressing and feta cheese bolted onto the murder timeline and dismantling of her version of events that were based on a script.
 
Defense witness, Henry Thomas (missed his last name) lives at 6 Jefferson Crossing

Met FD in 2006. FD built his house.

Familiar with FD and what he looked like.

Saw FD on May 24, 2019. Driving home between 6 and 6:30 saw FD jogging on JC. Had never seen him run before.
 
Defense witness, Attorney Michael Rose. Assisting FD with custody. Helping through custody matters.

January, 2019. FD was not allowed to see his children. In March, changed to structured visitation. Was temporary in nature, eye toward future and final disposition.

Did not represent MT but did talk to MT.

JS is asking the Court for leeway --

There were times he couldn't speak to FD because MT was present.
 
JS is trying to introduce a document from May 6 or 8, precluding the Attorney from being able to speak to his attorney in front of MT.

Objection

JS wants it to show things are being kept from his client.
 
Court: it's a hearsay statement! Offered for the truth. Sustained.

[a text where FD apparently said he didn't want to talk to Rose in front of MT!]

Omg

JS: were you aware of a custody report?
 
Confused here….. is that ‘UU’ an admitted exhibit or not? The objection from state was just sustained. MOO

And there it is, reference to the ‘Report’. Stated yesterday that I would be interested in how defense was going to discuss FD and custody matters, and as I thought he had offered to do so in evidence without reference to the ‘Report’. MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
3,235
Total visitors
3,373

Forum statistics

Threads
602,646
Messages
18,144,380
Members
231,471
Latest member
dylanfoxx
Back
Top