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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you - and reevaluated my thoughts above!
Dr. Herman interviewed FD a dozen times for the Court Ordered custody evaluation report and it was said that Herman had also interviewed MT.

In one of JLS Motions, he argued that since MT was interviewed by Herman, and possibly a party to the report, the defense should have access to determine if there was information that would help the defense.

I previously thought the Court granted JLS access only to the report pages that made reference to MT but now I think this was the suggestion by the Prosecution, and not the decision by the Court. JMO
 
The problem Troconis has in her police interviews is that she first presents her script, and only changes her testimony in response to evidence that police have collected. When police confront her with smoke coming out of the chimney, she denies it repeatedly without yet knowing there is video proof.
 
Dr. Herman interviewed FD a dozen times for the Court Ordered custody evaluation report and it was said that Herman had also interviewed MT.

In one of JLS Motions, he argued that since MT was interviewed by Herman, and possibly a party to the report, the defense should have access to determine if there was information that would help the defense.

I previously thought the Court granted JLS access only to the report pages that made reference to MT but now I think this was the suggestion by the Prosecution, and not the decision by the Court. JMO
So she had access to the file, but broadcasting mental health assessment details during trial is the violation. Her lawyer is off the hook?
 
The problem Troconis has in her police interviews is that she first presents her script, and only changes her testimony in response to evidence that police have collected. When police confront her with smoke coming out of the chimney, she denies it repeatedly without yet knowing there is video proof.
Similarly, MT was trying to discuss the family study in one of her early interviews with police while attorney Bowman was representing her. He cautioned her to not reference the report.
 
Similarly, MT was trying to discuss the family study in one of her early interviews with police while attorney Bowman was representing her. He cautioned her to not reference the report.
The only reason the report would be relevant in the murder investigation is if Troconis wants to argue that Jennifer ran away due to a mental health episode. Jennifer did not leave enough blood in her garage to demonstrate that she is deceased, and then run away. Nobody believes that, so the report is irrelevant.

I think Troconis wanted to tell the world that Jennifer, or a relative, had/has a mental health diagnosis - disparage the victim.

Did Troconis ask for immunity prior to meeting with police?
 
The only reason the report would be relevant in the murder investigation is if Troconis wants to argue that Jennifer ran away due to a mental health episode. Jennifer did not leave enough blood in her garage to demonstrate that she is deceased, and then run away. Nobody believes that, so the report is irrelevant.

I think Troconis wanted to tell the world that Jennifer, or a relative, had/has a mental health diagnosis - disparage the victim.

Did Troconis ask for immunity prior to meeting with police?
No, not that the public are aware of. Many local defence attorneys have criticised the lack of agreement for MT doing the interviews but imo the relationship between MT then attorney (Bowman), local LE and then States Attorney Colangelo could have been collegial in nature and longstanding trust might have existed between the parties based on working together for many years is my personal speculation. I base this in part on the presence of then States Attorney Colangelo at MT LE Interview 2 as I believe it unlikely that the States highest LE official (he was also running the investigation into the disappearance/murder of JF at the time personally iirc) attends many such similar interviews.

Clearly, the three LE Interviews done by MT effectively in the opinion of many sunk her with the Jury and the Court of Public Opinion, but she was always represented by Counsel and knew that she didn't have to speak as was clearly explained to her at the start of each interviews. IMO (pure speculation) it seemed like Atty Bowman initially might have believed that MT was telling the truth and did want to work with LE to assist the investigation to find JF (or the body) but at some point he realised this simply was not the case as the situation evolved.

FWIW it was bizarre watching the interviews as it was clear she very much wanted to put her narrative forward to LE but stayed in line with the alibi script and variations of it for a good amount of time and then started lying about lies she had previously made to the point where I would believe that her then Attorney might have finally realised there was no way LE would find her credible and finalise any type of cooperation or immunity agreement. By then the 'cow had left the barn' and MT had spoken as there was no way any agreement could happen. This is my speculation as clearly we don't know what happened between MT, Attorney Bowman and LE but no cooperation agreement was ever put in place.

Attorney Bowman has a long history locally of successfully keeping clients out of the spotlight and out of Court via working with LE. From watching his client MT speak in the three interviews I do wonder at what point it became clear to him that she was simply lying about lies and no deal would ever be forthcoming even though he pushed his LE and States Attorney's hard to put some kind of deal in place? We simply don't know the answer to what he might have been doing as he only spoke to the Press once and simply said that he (unlike Pattis and Schoenhorn) would 'never speak to the Press about a client'. Atty Bowman and MT severed their working relationship at some point for reasons unknown (much speculation on this issue here on WS and much commentary in MT and Troconis Crew Social media seeming to blame Atty Bowman for 'betraying' MT). Atty Bowman as per his policy has never spoken about his former client MT publicly.

PG, whose wife owned the Red Tacoma driven by FD on the Murder Date to NC, initially had a verbal immunity agreement from then States Attorney Colangelo and this was followed up by a formal agreement at a later date as we learned at the MT Trial. PG was also represented by local counsel who I believe started working with PG around the time of his first formal interview with LE, although the circumstances of PG (vs MT) involvement with LE appeared quite different imo as he seemed to want to assist the investigation to find JF (MT never exhibited any interest in JF or finding her body imo) but was smart enough to realise the circumstances surrounding some of his activities might look suspicious (he was in NC on the Murder Date working at FD Sturbridge House) so he engaged Atty Lindy Urso on his behalf and then spent many months working with LE under his immunity agreement.

This same type of trusting and collegial relationship seen with Bowman never existed with MT current Counsel Jon Schoenhorn and he also fought to have the 3 interviews of MT dismissed from her trial and also fought to discredit her prior Counsel for ineffective representation based on MT not having some type of agreement in place for the 3 LE Interviews. Schoenhorn also fought hard in pre trial period to discredit lead Detective Kimball and his supervisor Sgt. Ventreska with a particular focus on what he claimed were 'errors' in the various AAs prepared and approved by Judge Blawie and White iirc.

MT prior atty (Atty Bowman) we believe was operating under the early assumption that MT was telling the truth and so the 3 interviews she did had the appearance of her cooperating with LE with the somewhat veiled assumption that she was cooperating imo. There was no immunity or other agreement in place at the time of these 3 interviews for MT. What was interesting was that the then States Atty (Colangelo) himself attended the second interview to listen to what MT had to say and he was on video saying something to the effect of 'she doesn't know'. We don't know for sure what exactly he meant by this statement but many believe he was referring to the body of JF which at the time was the top priority of LE to find (its never been found which is why I'm so happy you are here my friend as we have long been stumped by this pesky detail (as has LE despite an investigation that some in the Press put at costing between $5-$10 million).

MT prior attorney was believed to have a longstanding strong relationship with the former States attorney such that many believed he was trying to work out some kind of plea or other deal for MT at that time but so far as we know, no such deal was ever formalised.

On your issue in OP about "MT wanting to disparage' the victim JF, I agree with you completely on this as MT waved off her attorney telling her not to speak about the contents of the discredited Herman report. I believe MT also defiantly repeated her claims about the discredited Herman report again when she spoke in a later LE Interview of writing the '67 questions for the meeting with a psychologist that she lined up with FD because she claimed to be in fear of JF'. We never heard more about this particular meeting at MT trial and we never got to hear about the protective order that MT allegedly had KM write on her behalf and that she supposedly filed with Farmington PD. The protective order document is public and was placed here somewhere on WS ages ago when we first learned about it. All we know is that at the MT trial there was a sidebar on the protective order and it was never mentioned to the jury iirc.

From the Schoenhorn comments post MT conviction it seemed to me that he was again raising the argument of 'ineffective counsel' from Attorney Bowman to be pursued post conviction. Schoenhorns prior argument on this topic had previously been heard by Judge R I believe in pretrial motions and had been dismissed. Those motion documents or portions of them along with the final Order are also here in WS somewhere. So, we have no idea what might happen on this topic going forward as its probably too early to tell at this point.

MOO
 
Has her lawyer been sanctioned?
Not that we are aware of. I checked the CT Judiciary site today (it lags sometimes a few days) and didn't see anything official listed for either MT Lawyer which I found surprising. We don't know if warrants might have been issued or perhaps subpoenas issued for their appearance at the MT Contempt Hearing either unless the Press picked them up and reported on them.

But, CT Judiciary doesn't seem to sanction attorneys for their misdeeds and most things seem to be handled behind closed doors imo.

The State brought the Contempt charge against MT so in theory wouldn't they have to bring a charge against Jon Schoenhorn and Audrey Felson and make it public if it were going to happen?

We saw in Family Court that Judge Heller dealt with the dismissal of then FD divorce attorney Michael Rose behind closed doors for his role in submitting the FD false financial statements as well as the alleged theft of the discredited Herman report by FD.

Judge Heller also apparently wasn't pleased with the performance of the GAL Atty Michael Meehan for his alleged role in the discredited Herman report leak after her Court conducted an investigation (investigation report was sealed so we don't know the substance but the MT Trial detailed who had viewed the report and who had access to the report in Family Court so assumptions were made as to what might have happened to put the report into the hands of FD (and perhaps MT?).

So, it was believed that the GAL would have been dismissed from his role (JF Atty had filed a motion to have him dismissed based on the discredited Herman report iirc) but the murder of JF stopped this from happening and he was believed to have been kept in place to provide continuity to the children at a time of great crisis and uncertainly for them. So, the GAL stayed after the murder of JF and until after the custody fight between FD and GF where we saw GF ultimately prevail was concluded. In September, 2019 Judge Heller issued a final order on the discredited report (removed it from the case file as it was unfinished and maintained its sealed status) along with one other outstanding FD/Atty Mike Rose Motion (denied) and declared a mistrial in Family Court. This motion is also on WS someplace.

MOO
 
No, she knew very well she was violating the Order of a sealed document. More details about the arrest warrant and the seal by Judge Heller here:

Sealed custody report viewed on Michelle Troconis’ laptop during trial, contempt warrant alleges
Quotes from HC article:

"The Stamford State’s Attorney’s Office, which charged Troconis with contempt, said in the warrant affidavit that Troconis was aware that the report was sealed and “knowingly violated” at least two judges’ orders by viewing it and displaying it".

"The new warrant for Troconis, signed by Judge Gary J. White on March 1, offers further insight into how the court became aware of the alleged criminal activity through a note from Farber Dulos’ close friend, Carrie Luft".

"Luft provided a written statement to investigators on Feb. 15, in which she outlined what happened that day that led her to pass a note to inspector David Edwards. Luft said that during a court recess on Feb. 15, she became aware of something on Troconis’ laptop that mentioned a doctor of Farber Dulos’, according to the warrant affidavit.
While seated in the courtroom later that day, Luft told investigators she “looked at Troconis’ monitor after a while and I saw, clearly visible, the words “borderline personality disorder” displayed as the top line of what she had pulled up on her computer. ”

"In the next paragraph, she said she could read the name of the doctor as well as the words “treating psychiatrist” and “Jennifer Dulos,” the warrant affidavit said".

"Luft estimated that the words were in a large font because she could read them from the courtroom. “The words were clearly visible to me. I was seated in the front row, on the aisle, behind the prosecution. I would say the words were in about 70-point font,” she said, according to the warrant affidavit".

"She said the writing was not quoted, as if in a news article, but appeared to be a first-person account, the warrant affidavit said".

“I was one of Jennifer Farber Dulos’ closest friends, and she had told me about the family psychological evaluation while it was happening and when it was shared with her in late April 2019,” Luft said in her statement, according to the warrant affidavit. “This is how I am aware of some of the contents of that report. I have never seen the actual report. However, what I know of it, and what I was able to read on Michelle Troconis’ monitor, leads me to believe that she was displaying some part of that report.”

"Luft told investigators that she tore off a piece of paper and wrote a note to Edwards because she was worried that the sealed report was being shown publicly and illegally, the warrant affidavit said".

“It concerned me greatly that Michelle Troconis was displaying this material in a clearly visible fashion, while the proceedings were being livestreamed for public consumption,” Luft said in the statement to investigators.
Michelle Troconis appears in court on day 22 of her criminal trial at Connecticut Superior Court in Stamford, Conn. Thursday, Feb. 15, 2024. Troconis is on trial for charges related to the disappearance and death of New Canaan resident Jennifer Dulos. (Tyler Sizemore/Hearst Connecticut Media/Pool)

Tyler Sizemore/Hearst Connecticut Media/Pool

"Michelle Troconis is accused of reading parts of a court-sealed custody report on her laptop while seated beside her defense team on Feb. 15 during her criminal trial. (Tyler Sizemore/Hearst Connecticut Media/Pool)

"Her note prompted prosecutors Michelle Manning and Sean McGuiness to look over to see what was on Troconis’ screen. Throughout the trial, Troconis usually had a family portrait displayed. Luft told investigators that Troconis’ mother Marisela Arrezza, who was usually seated behind her daughter, “rose from her seat in the front row” and got Troconis’ attention, according to the warrant affidavit".

“Troconis immediately pulled down the document and returned her screen to her usual background, a group of people in white shirts and khakis against a green grassy backdrop,” Luft said in the warrant affidavit".

"McGuiness brought the concern to the court’s attention, prompting a sidebar conversation between Judge Kevin A. Randolph and attorneys for both sides. The issue was addressed toward the end of the day on Feb. 15, with Randolph noting the seriousness of the potential issue and making mention of a contempt hearing".

"The issue was addressed the next morning when prosecutors said they had confirmed the allegations by watching videos of the trial".

"In the warrant affidavit, the State’s Attorney’s Office wrote that they reviewed a video stream from the Law and Crime Network in which “the broadcast video moved in closer to Troconis and captured the full screen of her computer. The picture was brought in closer to include the left section of her computer screen, as everything to the right was cropped off.”

"Division of Criminal Justice Inspector Christopher Gioielli wrote in the warrant affidavit that he took a screenshot of the video that showed nine partial sentences containing about 82 letters, numbers and punctuation marks that mirror page 50 of the sealed report. That page, the warrant affidavit said, included a forensic evaluation of the Dulos family as it related to the family court case of Jennifer Dulos vs. Fotis Dulos."

"The Courant reviewed Law and Crime’s video stream and the timestamp noted in the warrant and also captured a screenshot of the moment Troconis’ laptop was shown".

"The warrant affidavit also noted an article by Hearst Connecticut Media, in which reporters noted that Troconis had previously had an article pulled up that made mention of fabricated forensic evidence while a forensic analyst was on the witness stand".

"The article Troconis had pulled up was from the Associated Press, with the headline “Judge Finds Forensic Scientist Henry Lee Liable for Fabricating Evidence in a Murder Case,” and detailed how a judge found famed forensic scientist Henry Lee liable for fabricating evidence in a murder case that sent two Connecticut men to prison".

"Prosecutors in February made mention of this article and concerns about Troconis’ family’s behavior, with McGuinness moving to have Troconis’ mother barred from the courtroom".

"Randolph did not kick Troconis’ mother out but ruled that other than attorneys and court staff, no one would be on a laptop in the courtroom during the trial. Troconis did not use her laptop in the courtroom again".

"The warrant affidavit mentioned that Troconis had been in court for all criminal pretrial and trial proceedings when Randolph and all counsel consistently referred to the report as a “sealed” report consistent with Judge Heller and Judge John F. Blawie’s prior orders".

"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".

"Randolph first ordered that a contempt hearing would be held after the defense rested its case, then set a date of March 5. After the jury delivered its verdict on March 1, he moved the contempt hearing to March 21 and recused himself from the case".

"Troconis was officially charged with contempt on March 1 when she was taken into custody on an increased $6 million bond and brought to York Correctional Institute in Niantic, where she remained this week according to Schoenhorn. She is being represented by attorney Bob Frost in the contempt case. He did not return a request for comment".
 

Quotes from article:

"Attorney Michael Meehan, who was a guardian ad litem appointed to the five Dulos children in 2019, testified Thursday morning that the divorce and custody battle between Farber Dulos and Dulos was having an “adverse effect” on Dulos’ relationship with Troconis and that Dulos sounded “excited” after his wife disappeared".

"Troconis is charged with allegedly conspiring with Dulos to kill his estranged wife and helping to cover up his crimes".

"Meehan testified that Dulos had, for a time, been prevented from having any contact with his children. But in the months leading up to his wife’s disappearance, he was allowed supervised visits under a custody order that barred Troconis, his then-live-in girlfriend, and her daughter from being around the Dulos children".

"Meehan told the jury about a conversation he had with Dulos and Troconis in March 2019 that centered around that custody order".

"Reading the notes he made after that call, Meehan said Dulos was “upset” and “concerned” about the custody arrangement".

T"roconis, he said, was calm but “down” about the restrictions".

“Mr. Dulos was upset because the court didn’t grant immediate access between Michelle Troconis and (her daughter) and the minor children,” Meehan wrote.

"He said Dulos was questioning whether he could keep on with the litigation of their divorce and custody battle due to how it was effecting his life with Troconis".

“Mr. Dulos was concerned and didn’t know if he could continue on with the litigation, because it was having an adverse effect on his relationship with Michelle.”

"Dulos asked Meehan if he could speak with Troconis directly and he agreed. The two spoke for about five minutes, he said".

“She was down as well. She was frustrated,” Meehan said. “She had expressed disappointment and really just a lack of understanding as to why the court had not allowed access between her and the children.”

"Reading from his notes, Meehan said “Michelle wanted to know what she had done to cause the court to order that she not be permitted to be in contact with the children.”

"He said he informed her that the court proceedings were creating “a pathway” for eventually reintroducing Troconis and her daughter to Dulos’ kids and asked if she had ever met Farber Dulos".

"Troconis said she had never met her then-boyfriend’s wife, but “would be open to speaking with her or meeting her for coffee to discuss being reintroduced to the children.”

"He said Troconis said that she “didn’t move here for all this” and didn’t have such a contentious relationship with her own ex-spouse. She also said she felt bad for the children".

"Later Thursday, following Meehan’s testimony, Assistant Supervisory State’s Attorney Michelle Manning said that prosecutors were handed a note advising them that one of Farber Dulos’ close friends spotted what was believed to be a custody report — that has been sealed by the court — on Troconis’ laptop during court proceedings Thursday".

"Judge Kevin A. Randolph said a contempt hearing might be in the future after prosecutors raised the concern".

"Randolph said that “if that custody report is being disseminated, and if it’s being disseminated essentially with the involvement of the defendant,” the court would have to act".

“Because then it’s a violation of the court order and then there would have to be a contempt hearing,” he said.

"The court is expected to take the issue up first thing Friday morning".

"Earlier, during the cross-examination with Meehan, defense attorney Audrey Felsen asked Meehan if he was aware that Troconis might be planning to move out of state because of the divorce and custody battle".

"He said yes and agreed that the situation was “disappointing” to her and she “didn’t want to be around it.”

"Outside the courthouse on Thursday, Troconis’ parents declined to comment on whether Troconis was planning to leave Connecticut".

“She had us in Miami so she knew that at any time she could go there, but I don’t know that’s something that you need to ask her,” they said. Troconis, standing nearby, did not comment.

"Also during cross-examination, Felsen asked if a custody report was completed in 2019".

"Meehan said yes and testified that that Dulos was “upset and outraged” by the report, and so filed a motion".

"That motion was heard in May 2019, and at that hearing, nothing changed in the custody order. Troconis was still not allowed to see the kids during Dulos’ limited and supervised visits with his children. Meehan said Dulos was frustrated".

"But on May 25, 2019, Meehan testified that Dulos’ tone changed. He sounded “very excited” during a phone call that day, Meehan said".

"Farber Dulos disappeared on May 24, 2019, and investigators allege Dulos killed his wife after she returned home from dropping their kids off that morning".

"Meehan read to the jury a note he made after the May 25 call with Dulos, which was titled: “Jennifer Missing.”

“I noticed the tone in his voice to not be down or somber but to be excited,” he said.

"They talked about where Dulos was the day before and Meehan asked if he had an alibi. Dulos said he was home all morning and then had meetings".

H"e then asked about the children and their safety and orthodontist appointments they had in New York City the day before. Farber Dulos missed those appointments, setting off alarm bells".

"When talking to Meehan, Dulos allegedly said he hadn’t signed off on those dental appointments".

"But Meehan said he checked a service the estranged couple used to message each other, called Our Family Wizard, and found messages that confirmed Dulos did know about the appointments".

"During cross-examination, defense attorney Audrey Felsen asked Meehan: “Was it your opinion that Mr. Dulos lied an awful lot?”

“Yes,” Meehan said".

"Meehan testified that he had first met Dulos and Farber Dulos around 2017".

"When he first started working with the family, he said, Dulos reportedly hoped that he, Farber Dulos, their children, Troconis and Troconis’ daughter would all live together in his home at 4 Jefferson Crossing in Farmington".

"Meehan testified that he spoke with Farber Dulos regularly until May 24. After that, he said, “Sadly I’ve never spoken to her again.”


Dr. Herman interviewed FD a dozen times for the Court Ordered custody evaluation report and it was said that Herman had also interviewed MT.

In one of JLS Motions, he argued that since MT was interviewed by Herman, and possibly a party to the report, the defense should have access to determine if there was information that would help the defense.

I previously thought the Court granted JLS access only to the report pages that made reference to MT but now I think this was the suggestion by the Prosecution, and not the decision by the Court. JMO
Yes, Schoenhorn admitted in Court during the MT Trial that he had the full report from Judge Blawie and his co counsel admitted in Court to having 4 pages. But, I question her statement as she was charged with the 'testimony cross' of GAL Michael Meehan in the MT Trial and I'm not sure how she could do that with just 4 pages but perhaps its possible? IDK.

MOO
 
Last edited:

Quotes from article:

"Speaking outside Stamford Superior Court on Thursday afternoon, Schoenhorn spoke on the fact that Dulos’ name is mentioned much more than Troconis’ in the courtroom".

“This appears to be the trial of Fotis Dulos,” said Schoenhorn outside the courthouse Thursday afternoon. “Almost nothing in this entire month that we’ve been here, more than a month now, has much if anything to do with Michelle Troconis.”

"Also outside the courthouse, Troconis’ mother Marisela Arreaza said that the trial had been very long so far and agreed that it had focused on Dulos, not her daughter, whose innocence she defended".

“Of course she’s innocent, she doesn’t have anything to do with Jennifer’s disappearance and we’re here to support her,” Arreaza said.

“We hope it will end soon because it has been a tragedy for us, and I’m sure it’s a tragedy for the Farber family, too,” she said. “But we want this to end and for my daughter to be OK again and to regain our life.”
First thing Friday, the court is expected to take up the issue of whether the sealed report was pulled up on Troconis’ computer screen.

Manning said it was ” a huge concern.”

“We can’t gloss over the serious nature of her having access to the report, of her displaying it for everyone to see,” she said Thursday afternoon.

After that issue is dealt with, the jury is expected to see a video of the third interview between Troconis and
investigators.









 

Quotes from article:

“While it’s our hope that today’s verdict brings Jennifer’s family and friends some peace, we also hope that someday we can provide resolution to the still unanswered question of where Jennifer rests,” Paul J. Ferencek, the state’s attorney whose office prosecuted the case, said in a statement. “I assure you the state of Connecticut and this office will never stop looking.”

"Ms. Troconis, who has been free on bond since she was arrested, faces up to 50 years in prison. The judge set her bond at $6 million on Friday, and ordered her to remain on house arrest while awaiting sentencing if she posts it".

"The case against Ms. Troconis centered on her actions the night Ms. Dulos was declared missing, when prosecutors said Ms. Troconis and Mr. Dulos drove to Hartford and dumped trash bags filled with evidence, including zip ties, clothing and a kitchen sponge stained with blood."

"In her first two interviews with detectives, Ms. Troconis appeared to be cooperating, but in a third, on Aug. 13, 2019, she admitted to not having been truthful in the earlier conversations".

"In footage from the third interview that was shown during the trial, Ms. Troconis said she had lied at the direction of Mr. Dulos".

“He set me up because he used me,” Ms. Troconis said.

"Ms. Dulos had claimed in court documents related to her divorce that Mr. Dulos and Ms. Troconis had been involved in a yea rlong extramarital affair, a charge Mr. Dulos did not deny. Shortly after they separated, Ms. Troconis moved in with Mr. Dulos".

"Ms. Dulos, a writer and blogger, and Mr. Dulos, a luxury real estate developer, reconnected in New York City years after they first met at Brown University. They married in 2004".

"Ms. Dulos filed for divorce in 2017, citing Mr. Dulos’s “irrational, unsafe, bullying, threatening and controlling behavior.

"She immediately sought an emergency custody order for the couple’s five children, fearing that Mr. Dulos would try to harm them, according to court documents. The children have been in the custody of Ms. Dulos’s mother, Gloria Farber, since Ms. Dulos disappeared".

"In March 2021, the Connecticut General Assembly introduced “Jennifer’s Law,” a bill named after both Ms. Dulos and Jennifer Magnano, a Connecticut woman killed by her husband, that expanded the state’s definition of domestic violence to include coercive control. The bill was signed into law and went into effect that October".
 

JonS does not agree with the Jury's verdict. No, he doesn't like it at all. However, most everyone else feels the Jury reached the correct verdict. Guilty on all six counts. $6 million bond - $1 million per count. Sounds fair to me.

A female fam member said in their post-verdict presser that we "should have some compassion." Our legal system eliminates feelings. It's about obeying the law. T's can continue trying to change the trial's results but they're repeatedly banging their heads on a brick wall.

They should ask Michelle why she didn't show some compassion for Jennifer and her children.
 
Dr. Herman interviewed FD a dozen times for the Court Ordered custody evaluation report and it was said that Herman had also interviewed MT.

In one of JLS Motions, he argued that since MT was interviewed by Herman, and possibly a party to the report, the defense should have access to determine if there was information that would help the defense.

I previously thought the Court granted JLS access only to the report pages that made reference to MT but now I think this was the suggestion by the Prosecution, and not the decision by the Court. JMO
Perhaps this explains Atty AF's claim that she'd seen only four pages, maybe that's all the Defense was permitted.

Regardless, it was that one page that Inmate #433612 was over-displaying for anyone and everyone to see. Mighty coincidental.

Is it reasonable to assume the State has lodged a complaint to the Connecticut bar and that's why we see no court filing?
 
There was a comment a few pages back questioning why Jennifer's bloody clothing was cut from her body. The only thing that makes sense to me is that Dulos wants to be sure that if her body is found, there is no way for it to be identified. Since her clothing could be recognized, that was separated from her body. There was so much blood at the crime scene (enough to declare her deceased) that I wonder whether her teeth were also damaged to prevent identification.

Regarding where her body might be, the pond and other undeveloped land near his home are often referenced. Given Dulos' history with water sports, water skiing, water in general, I think water is a good possibility for where he put her body.

I don't think that Dulos drove the 70 miles from Jennifer's home to his home with her body in the Tacoma. Although we know there was some trace of Jennifer's blood in the Tacoma, I think it is a result of transporting the garbage bags of evidence to his home (or nearby his home).

This 40 minute gap in time interests me. I'm sure it has been discussed in earlier discussion, but I only started reading here after the verdict. I'm curious about where Jennifer's body may be. Was this area searched?

View attachment 488427
Warrants

Missing 40 minutes
View attachment 488430
Map

Dulos might know of unofficial boat ramps or access to water in the area.
View attachment 488429
Map
Excellent question! I wish we could ask the ones who search this question.
 
Is it possible that her lawyer, or his assistant, made a sloppy mistake of uploading all case files to a password protected client folder, and the Herman/Custody report was accidentally uploaded to that folder? Troconis may have found the custody report within her case files without intent by her lawyer to provide the file to her. Careless lawyer or assistant.

It's interesting that she chose to reveal to the courts and TV cameras that she had the report in 72 font during trial. She knew that she was demonstrating that her lawyer had violated his commitment to the courts. What's the long game?
No way to know IMO. But, this goes to some upthread (or prior thread discussion in this case I believe). IMO one possible answer to the first question is No. (Remember how lead defense counsel JS tried ‘mightily’ to enter that sealed ‘Report’ as evidence in the late stages of the MT trial? And the astute state’s attorney MM objected IIRC, and reviewed the document, saw what it was and had it disallowed or prevented on the record.) That effort by JS was no accident!

Then attorney JS (or maybe it was the day or so prior) had defense counsel AF answer to the court / judge on how the restricted sealed ‘Report’ display by their client MT had occurred? Instead of answering for his client and case! That seems appalling IMO.

For once I wish I was a lawyer and better understood - but IMO this is further support for why defense counsels JS & AF should (how about MUST) also be cited and placed under oath and answer on all these points. And then to be sanctioned or censured as allowed by the court for any offense(s).(Someone above mentioned I think maybe the Court could refer this to the CT state bar. IANAL but concur with that idea.)

And it was also questioned up thread as to why would this now convicted defendant MT have even had the sealed ‘Repoort’ document? As it was between I believe the now deceased FD and JF, and any court authority and those that prepared it? (That is another excellent question IMO.)

What is the long game……. or even short game with team MT and counsel on this? Who knows? But I also find it quite interesting that some other defense attorneys when commenting on the MT convictions and outcome IIRC refer to this ‘Report’ and its ‘appearance or entrance as evidence’ (which did not actually occur) as not appropriate? Seems to be a fraternity IMO trying to ‘unring a bell’ that the defense and their client rang!

And the defendant MT was the one displaying it in open court! On her computer IIRC. And counsel referred to it in court and tried to introduce it as evidence. IMO defense counsel and their team have been quite effective - at what they have desired and intended to do. Whatever it is.

If someone tried to serve me this ‘fishy’ entree I would object and return it to the chef. MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
117
Guests online
2,200
Total visitors
2,317

Forum statistics

Threads
602,100
Messages
18,134,694
Members
231,233
Latest member
Gerardclori
Back
Top