GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #68

[Megnut]

Really!! Why has all this new info been so hard to come by? Both the seizure of the laptop AND readable video evidence of the document on her screen. I knew the defense team said she “didn’t have it” - such a sketchy statement.

What could she possibly say in her defense? 1) She didn’t know she had the document seems to be the only non-incriminating thing; but she can’t testify to that because she would be shredded on cross. 2) She can’t say she didn’t mean to open it because that would be an admission of knowing she had it which is the essence of the violation. And again - no way to get that in without her testimony and destruction on cross.

What is worse for her though is she isn’t just an unknowing recipient of a document who may have negligently left her laptop open, in front of the gallery and media - she displayed it on purpose to be disrespectful to the court, the jury the state prosecutors and witnesses. That is why I hope there is evidence she opened the document and changed the font or the zoom in open court. I think they can prove the violation without those keystrokes - it would just be very revealing if a computer expert could show that level of manipulation aka consciousness of guilt.

Other than her who could the defense even call?

Who else could they call?

A Spanish font expert?

No way it was an accident she had it homed in on that portion in that size.

And didn't we just learn she's a free person? I think she (thinks she) answers to no one. That train's coming to a hard stop.

JMO

 

[afitzy]

Really!! Why has all this new info been so hard to come by? Both the seizure of the laptop AND readable video evidence of the document on her screen. I knew the defense team said she “didn’t have it” - such a sketchy statement.

What could she possibly say in her defense? 1) She didn’t know she had the document seems to be the only non-incriminating thing; but she can’t testify to that because she would be shredded on cross. 2) She can’t say she didn’t mean to open it because that would be an admission of knowing she had it which is the essence of the violation. And again - no way to get that in without her testimony and destruction on cross.

What is worse for her though is she isn’t just an unknowing recipient of a document who may have negligently left her laptop open, in front of the gallery and media - she displayed it on purpose to be disrespectful to the court, the jury the state prosecutors and witnesses. That is why I hope there is evidence she opened the document and changed the font or the zoom in open court. I think they can prove the violation without those keystrokes - it would just be very revealing if a computer expert could show that level of manipulation aka consciousness of guilt.

Other than her who could the defense even call?

Could they perhaps call one of MT's attorneys or perhaps even the person who gave her the report? Or, won't she have explain where she got the sealed report?

I'm simply confused how this can be investigated if they don't know where it came from or even how to establish remedies to remove the report from all sources?

Colour me very confused.

 

[afitzy]

In addition to that, her #2 defense attorney clearly read it. It's on video. JS quickly allowed that he was interrogating the witness, thus unaware.
Posters then said #2 attorney should be held accountable. I actually posted I thought that was harsh. But now I get their reasoning.
MOO.

Yes, but the only defence attorney that allegedly had a FULL COPY was Jon Schoenhorn? The other attorney whose name I don't recall said she just had 4 pages? Whether this is true or not who knows? But, I doubt this statement as how could she prepare her 'testimony cross' of GAL Atty Michael Meehan without the full report?

Sorry, but this simply isn't making much sense?

I also don't understand why the two attorneys are not required to attend the MT Contempt hearing to confirm whether or not they provided her with the report or perhaps just pages? I checked the CT Judiciary website and neither of the attorneys names shows up associated with the matter that I can find? Are they able to escape not even being interviewed or investigated as it was their client that had the report that she was not entitled to have per the guidelines of Judge Heller.

I realise it was MT who had the document page on her screen? But, the issues surrounding how it got there I think are quite important. Judge Blawie gave it to Jon Schoenhorn with the understanding that it be safeguarded per the Practice Book and I'm not seeing how anything that happened in terms of how the report was handled was in line with the Judge Blawie guideline? Why aren't the attorneys being questioned as part of this hearing? Did Jon Schoenhorn illegally copy the report or perhaps digitise it to give to his co-counsel and possibly even MT?

Moo

 

[citygirl]

Could they perhaps call one of MT's attorneys or perhaps even the person who gave her the report? Or, won't she have explain where she got the sealed report?

I'm simply confused how this can be investigated if they don't know where it came from or even how to establish remedies to remove the report from all sources?

Colour me very confused.

Can that not be somehow assessed when they get into her laptop?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Really!! Why has all this new info been so hard to come by? Both the seizure of the laptop AND readable video evidence of the document on her screen. I knew the defense team said she “didn’t have it” - such a sketchy statement.

What could she possibly say in her defense? 1) She didn’t know she had the document seems to be the only non-incriminating thing; but she can’t testify to that because she would be shredded on cross. 2) She can’t say she didn’t mean to open it because that would be an admission of knowing she had it which is the essence of the violation. And again - no way to get that in without her testimony and destruction on cross.

What is worse for her though is she isn’t just an unknowing recipient of a document who may have negligently left her laptop open, in front of the gallery and media - she displayed it on purpose to be disrespectful to the court, the jury the state prosecutors and witnesses. That is why I hope there is evidence she opened the document and changed the font or the zoom in open court. I think they can prove the violation without those keystrokes - it would just be very revealing if a computer expert could show that level of manipulation aka consciousness of guilt.

Other than her who could the defense even call?

I think she also had other prior knowledge of the sealed ‘report’, as the convicted defendant MT also referred to that ‘report’ in one of the early interviews she had with investigators when her prior attorney was in the room with her IIRC. MOO

 

[afitzy]

In addition to that, her #2 defense attorney clearly read it. It's on video. JS quickly allowed that he was interrogating the witness, thus unaware.
Posters then said #2 attorney should be held accountable. I actually posted I thought that was harsh. But now I get their reasoning.
MOO.

Yes, that "poster" was me and if the co-counsel whose name I believe is Audrey Felson or Felsen was sitting there next to MT and the screen was tilted towards the Attorney and she was looking at the screen then how could she not know what MT was looking at as they seemed to be chatting at the time too.

If she knew what was on MT computer and didn't do something about it to protect the discredited report in line with Judge Blawie Order then I don't think that is right either and she should be held in contempt or some other charge that I'm simply not aware of as I'm not an attorney.

MOO

 

[citygirl]

Yes, but the only defence attorney that allegedly had a FULL COPY was Jon Schoenhorn? The other attorney whose name I don't recall said she just had 4 pages? Whether this is true or not who knows? But, I doubt this statement as how could she prepare her 'testimony cross' of GAL Atty Michael Meehan without the full report?

Sorry, but this simply isn't making much sense?

I also don't understand why the two attorneys were not required to attend the MT Contempt hearing to confirm whether or not they provided her with the report or perhaps just pages?

I realise it was MT who had the document page on her screen? But, the issues surrounding how it got there I think are quite important. Judge Blawie gave it to Jon Schoenhorn with the understanding that it be safeguarded per the Practice Book and I'm not seeing how anything that happened in terms of how the report was handled was in line with the Judge Blawie guideline? Why aren't the attorneys being questioned as part of this hearing? Did Jon Schoenhorn illegally copy the report or perhaps digitise it to give to his co-counsel and possibly even MT?

Moo

BBM. How do we know they won't be there? What have I missed?

 

[afitzy]

BBM. How do we know they won't be there? What have I missed?

We have no idea who received warrants?

I looked on the CT Judiciary Website and I didn't see anything for either of the attorneys.

Will this simply be swept under the rug no differently from what Judge Heller did in Family Court regarding Atty Michael Rose and the filing of the false financial reports with the Court on behalf of FD?

I'm just confused.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

 

[SkylarSid]

Completely agree! This is what I have been wondering - is there unseen-to-the-public camera evidence that she won’t be able to refute. Sounds like that is a yes.

Still no knowledge if they took her laptop and developed any metadata or “manipulation evidence” - like opening the document and changing the font size during live court.

She really is the poster child for lack of remorse. She intentionally impugns the judge who will not only determine 1) her bail on appeal; 2) but, her sentence. I really can’t imagine being in any worse standing before this judge facing a sentence for conspiracy to commit murder.

Hope she is getting used to her new digs… The ruse is up!

 

[afitzy]

 

[afitzy]

Does anyone know if perhaps Marissa Alter posted a copy of the 7 page Contempt Warrant? She usually posts documents but I don't have ability to search for the document now.

 

[afitzy]

Does anyone know if perhaps Marissa Alter posted a copy of the 7 page Contempt Warrant? She usually posts documents but I don't have ability to search for the document now.

 

[pernickety]

Other than her who could the defense even call?

How about whoever sent her the report? Or, if she scanned it in from a hard copy, an IT person to testify as to date she did so? Tho' they might be prosecution witnesses?

 

[citygirl]

Love the way she says important. Foreign to me. But she still kinda grates on me. Despite that am listening.

 

[Megnut]

Yes, that "poster" was me and if the co-counsel whose name I believe is Audrey Felson or Felsen was sitting there next to MT and the screen was tilted towards the Attorney and she was looking at the screen then how could she not know what MT was looking at as they seemed to be chatting at the time too.

If she knew what was on MT computer and didn't do something about it to protect the discredited report in line with Judge Blawie Order then I don't think that is right either and she should be held in contempt or some other charge that I'm simply not aware of as I'm not an attorney.

MOO

Maybe because the font was so large, Atty F mistook the letters for people and reimagined them to be wearing blue jeans and white shirts.

I joke but this is far from funny. 1. It's a discredited report. 2. It's a sealed report. Vaulted. 3. JFd's medical record ought to be private and protected. 4. This is a massive breach. On multiple levels.

Sentencing and sanctions are in order.

JMO

 

[lucegirl]

@lucegirl, I was going to send up an SOS for help on this but am not sure the answer can be found absent the Order from Judge Blawie which I don't believe we have. Apologies in advance as I got my cast off today and sadly the pain killers have scrambled my brain so this is all quite beyond me atm so I'm not sure I'm thinking about this issue properly at all. Any focus would be appreciate....to say the least.....

Here is the relevant section from the Hartford Courant article about the guideline that Judge Blawie put on Horn for the discredited report.

"In April 2021, Troconis’ defense attorney, Jon Schoenhorn, filed a motion regarding the report that was granted by Blawie in May 2021. Blawie’s instructions, according to the warrant affidavit, stated that the “report is released to defense counsel; restrictions pursuant to Practice Book Section 25-60 apply to its further dissemination.”

"The State’s Attorney’s Office said Troconis was present during that proceeding".

https://www.jud.ct.gov/publications/PracticeBook/PB.pdf

Page 313

Question: Reading this section from the Practice Book Section 25-60 referenced in the HC article above as being the restriction imposed by Judge Blawie, I'm scratching my head trying to understand how Jon Schoenhorn was even able to publicly discuss the discredited report as he has been since he received it in 4/21 let alone bring it into the MT Trial?

But, the above issue aside, on what basis was Judge Blawie even able to release the discredited report absent approval from Judge Heller from Family Court to Jon Schoenhorn as it seems clear in Section 25-60 that Schoenhorn isn't one of the named parties that could have a copy of the discredited report? But, not only did Schoenhorn obtain a copy of the report he then proceeded to talk about it both directly and indirectly when even the originally intended parties of Dulos v Dulos and their respective counsel and the GAL I don't believe could speak publicly about the report?

I think the backstory on the Schoenhorn motion was that he demanded a copy because CSP had a copy in their possession as I believe they found the copy at 4Jx.

I've always been confused as to how this was able to happen and I wondered why Judge Blawie simply didn't take the CSP copy away and return it to Judge Heller as the document was sealed and belonged to Family Court? If CSP had wanted it back then they could have issued a request to Judge Heller? I simply don't understand how this all happened?

I'm not an attorney so apologise in advance for simply not understanding something that perhaps is quite basic to an attorney, but i'm baffled.....
MOO

View attachment 488514





View attachment 488515View attachment 488516View attachment 488517View attachment 488525View attachment 488526

So absent a copy of the ShoeHorn motion, we don’t know the specific grounds on which he convinced Bawlie to grant the motion. The result of the motion was the report was released to ShoeHorn. The release was subject to the practice book with respect to further dissemination. So we don’t know the actual legal basis on which ShoeHorn argued he was entitled to the report in the first place. It could have been based on something other than a contorted argument that MT is somehow a “party”. Like as you suggest because CSP was using it against his client. Maybe he wined and horned it was exculpatory evidence.

So ShoeHorn came into legal possession of the report, subject to restrictions on dissemination. It’s reasonable to infer that if the judge released it to Horn, he could share it with his client (who was present) on the very limited basis detailed in the practice book. So maybe her new counsel will argue she had a copy and believed she was entitled to it because that is what Horn told her in English, and he didn’t also say in Spanish not to change the font.

As to why he is and has been horning all over town about the report - my guess would be he is walking a very skinny, if not nonexistent line, that existence of a “custody report” is not dissemination of the report - until he calls it “favorable” at which point the issue becomes to slippery to even get your hands on.

 

[lucegirl]

How about whoever sent her the report? Or, if she scanned it in from a hard copy, an IT person to testify as to date she did so? Tho' they might be prosecution witnesses?

Yes - I’m hoping there is a State’s witness, a computer expert, to reveal her electronic fingerprint.

A person who sent her the report, if not Horn, would probably refuse to testify or take the 5th because they would have to answer on cross how they got it and thought they could disseminate it.

 

[Megnut]

This needs to be said again.

FD and Inmate #433612 revealed their joint motive at the dinner party on 5/24. FD had already repositioned the Tacoma. His head was shaved. He met up with KM, probably repositioned the Suburban, jogged home haggardly... and boasted to his picnic friends that the divorce was finally going to be resolved and he was going to get his kids. Two things that weren't at all going to happen any time soon unless he took matters into his own hands, a plan he had already launched. I don't know how those four guests aren't still vomiting, to realize they weren't toasting a courtroom victory but FD's solution. It was a toast to murder.

Sickening.

 JMO

 

[Genieeasy]

Is it safe to infer now that based on Shoenhorn’s comments today, MT will not be bonding out and will be residing indefinitely at York Correctional til further notice or til her sentencing date.