GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #69

[afitzy]

Yes! And I recall Attorney McGuinness saying something generous about Schoenhorn "not understanding" Moody. Didn't matter though because the judge did.

Schoenhorn was trying to confuse everyone (without confusing himself) (of which he was not successful, spectacularly) by saying all the tested blood evidence should be thrown out because it might be not-blood and would confuse the easily confused jury.

Judge said, "not so fast, grasshopper". Law enforcement is investigating. They see a smear or stain or spatter. Experience tells them to investigate further. They test it. Doesn't light up? No need to test further. Schoenhorn says, "can't we all just agree not to talk about it?" No. Because, as the Judge highlighted, it goes to process. LE sees things, it directs their next steps. The results direct the next.

Especially relevant with the Tacoma, I think. Because the testing for blood at the time directed them to test further, and while much came back failing confirmatory testing, it was still significant when partnered with the discovery of car washing and detailing.

I was SHOCKED when, Schoenhorn asked during his closing salad, how much evidence was lost by washing the car! (Whose side was he on?!)

Anyway IMO the Judge overruled Schoenhorn's objections and denied his notions because first, just as Attorney McGuinness stated, Schoenhorn was applying/interpreting Moody wrongly and second, whether something was tested now and confirmed to be not-blood later isn't the ONLY finding with evidentiary value. There remains evidentiary value in the investigative process. Linkage. What LE believes AT THE THE TIME and why they did what they did next.

It's also possible I don't understand the challenge but I haven't had any wine... I hear wine helps.

JMO

@Megnut "I was SHOCKED when, Schoenhorn asked during his closing salad, how much evidence was lost by washing the car! (Whose side was he on?!)"

I was just reading this fact filled post and the above quoted portion hit me as it was none other than Jon Schoenhorn, Esq. who held onto a box of evidence in the MT case for over a year and did not turn it in to CSP when the investigation was ongoing.

Just ponder that....I have been and am still stunned how this could have happened with zero consequences for Jon Schoenhorn, Esq. NONE.

He would never answer questions about the box or his decision to break so many rules in the CT Practices book that I cannot even count (I could but frankly he just isn't worth the time....).

IMO he did what he did because he knew there would be no consequences from withholding evidence in a criminal proceeding in CT. None. There wasn't even an admonishment from the Judge on the record regarding the withheld evidence during the hearing for the States motion to disqualify Horn from representing MT. To me, the story of even what the State thinks about CT is told by the fact that they in their motion sought to disqualify Horn NOT for withholding the evidence but because he might have to testify about it? Classic CT and even the State is in on grift!

Nope, he delivered the box of items to his attorney and had HER call CSP and give them the box. He and she then hid behind privledge to not discuss anything about the box of evidence.

Box had the hoodie (test positive by State for MT hair and PG hair) and other items and was believed to have previously been in the possession of none other than Norman Pattis, Esq. Another member of the CT Bar "Rat Pack" Top 10 imo.

Here is State's Motion to disqualify Jon Schoenhorn, Esq. from representing MT BUT the State never filed a complaint about the evidence being withheld and neither did the Judge. Why?

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Not sure how this entire episode was allowed to happen with zero consequences? What would have happened if this evidence truly was critical to the case one way or another? Would the State have ever done anything? Seems doubtful to me.

So disappointing but sadly par for the course in CT.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

He believes? Shouldn’t an attorney be stating facts he can back up with statutes?

Classic Horn!

I "believe" he is 'full of HOT AIR....amongst other things...

Can't even be bothered to do some basic research on the topic or perhaps understand 'broad Judicial discretion' in sentencing matters.

Lazy is as lazy does my grandfather always used to say....true when he said it and still true today....

Tick tock on the Venezuelan Passport Horn!

Judge White should have imposed a daily fine for every day of the two years that Horn has held on to the passport from when the original order was made by the Court.


MOO

 

[Cloudydiamond]

View attachment 490476

Judge: Michelle Troconis must remain in Connecticut if she posts bond

Troconis had asked to leave the state because she gave the court a Florida address and had met all bail requirements for four years while awaiting trial.

connecticut.news12.com

Her hair though and glasses. Are those the ones she had in court or were they issued as part of her orange uniform.

 

[Megnut]

I was just reading this fact filled post and the quoted portion hit me as it was Jon Schoenhorn, Esq. who held onto a box of evidence in the MT case for over a year and did not turn it in to CSP when the investigation was ongoing.

Just ponder that....I have been and am still stunned how this could have happened with zero consequences for Jon Schoenhorn, Esq. NONE.

He would never answer questions about it.

Nope, he delivered the box of items to his attorney and had HER call CSP and give them the box. He and she then hid behind privledge to not discuss anything about the box of evidence.

Box had the hoodie (test positive by State for MT hair and PG hair) and other items and was believed to have previously been in the possession of none other than Norman Pattis, Esq. Another member of the CT Bar "Rat Pack" Top 10 imo.

Here is State's Motion to disqualify Jon Schoenhorn, Esq. from representing MT BUT the State never filed a complaint about the evidence being withheld and neither did the Judge. Why?

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Not sure how this entire episode was allowed to happen with zero consequences? What would have happened if this evidence truly was critical to the case one way or another? Would the State have ever done anything? Seems doubtful to me.

So disappointing but sadly par for the course in CT.

MOO

And Schoenhorn himself pushed against his own stipulation by asking witnesses about that very evidence!

You can't make this stuff up.

It would be laughable if it weren't outrageous.

 

[Catz]

View attachment 490476

Judge: Michelle Troconis must remain in Connecticut if she posts bond

Troconis had asked to leave the state because she gave the court a Florida address and had met all bail requirements for four years while awaiting trial.

connecticut.news12.com

Shes wearing orange? @ajksmom does that mean a certain level?

 

[citygirl]

Her hair though and glasses. Are those the ones she had in court or were they issued as part of her orange uniform.

She looks better than I expected.
Maybe she's adjusting?

 

[afitzy]

View attachment 490476

Judge: Michelle Troconis must remain in Connecticut if she posts bond

Troconis had asked to leave the state because she gave the court a Florida address and had met all bail requirements for four years while awaiting trial.

connecticut.news12.com

Judge White and Horn Horning.

I think Judge White facial expression speaks for us all here listening to the Horn request to allow MT to bask in the Miami sun while awaiting sentencing.

While Horn appears as if he has been a 10 day bender....or blunt blowin as Lil Wayne says...

MOO

 

[afitzy]

And Schoenhorn himself pushed against his own stipulation by asking witnesses about that very evidence!

You can't make this stuff up.

It would be laughable if it weren't outrageous.

Yep, the issue was the stipulation was mind blowing. AND YET, no consequences and No admonishment from Judge R.

Can you imagine having been Atty's Manning and McMannis and dealing with a miscreant such as Jon Schoenhorn, Esq.? Its sad that he couldn't be bothered to simply do the work in a professional ethical manner on behalf of his client. Instead it was all smoke and mirrors, tap dancing and many many games of three card monte slapdash along with huge waste of judicial resources to facilitate all his games too. Frankly I think he should be billed by the State of CT for wasting State time!

They must have lost their minds on a DAILY BASIS! Plus, they had to be perfect due to the ongoing threat of the MISTRIAL or APPEAL.

No mystery either imo why we saw an AD HOMINEM attack delivered by Atty McMannis in his brilliant closing with such heart felt ENTHUSIASM!

But, I blame the State as well as they had so many opportunities to attempt to sanction and censure Horn and they did zero. Judges did zero too even though Horn was warned on the record, they never followed up with consequences imo.

All quite sad and so Horn will continue Horning for some other sad sap Defendant and simply wasting more Judicial resources in CT.

MOO

 

[Seattle1]

@Seattle1, I dove into the Moody case black hole in the blood evidence this morning and I think your short phrase in OP kinda describes Horn perfectly from the beginning. Thanks for this also because I will now stop as per usual Horn didn’t do his homework and is simply throwing spaghetti and hoping something will stick. Total waste of time per usual with him imo. Thank you for reminding me!

He never seems to do the work to quantify his arguments but rather lobs these ominous sounding motions which seem to allege prosecutorial abuse or misconduct or lack of diligence or whatever. He does this on rinse and repeat and has been doing it for over 4 years. Thing is when you dive into the details there simply is “no there there”. His laziness imo is astounding. I honestly don’t know why a judge simply doesn’t put a red pen line through his motions with a note saying when you have evidence to support this please return. He has been a huge waste of time and of precious resources to a CT court system that is still way behind due to Covid delay!

So annoying to spend time watching the blood evidence testimony again to see if his argument about presumptive testing not being followed up by confirmatory testing on a consistent basis and per usual he isn’t imo correct. Idk what percentage of all evidence presented at trial has to have both presumptive and confirmatory testing but based on watching the testimony yet again this am it seems like it’s clearly more than 75% roughly. It’s not realistic to expect all evidence gathered to be lab tested. I just don’t know what the standard for what is presented at trial should be? On the surface you obviously shouldn’t have trial evidence based solely on presumptive testing but there has to be a balance I would think? I just don’t know the standard for a balance in terms of evidence testing type as I’m not an attorney.

But, horn alleged improper presentation and insufficient testing and seemed to leave it at that with zero data. He also didn’t know the difference between splatter and spatter so that should have been the tip off too to not waste time on his specious arguments. No wonder most of his motions pretrial were denied as they simply lacked substance and diligence imo. Total waste of time imo.

On you OP statement about same salad different dressing I’m reminded of having to listen to Horn Horning in pretrial about the incompetence of Det Kimball and CSP for the “many and extensive errors” in the AAs. This went on for years! The AA imo were things of beauty in terms of detail and images and precision and frankly I have never seen ones similar on another case!

Horn never said exactly what his issues were or what was done in error with the AAs. Just alleged that all kinds of errors existed and he sought to whip up a distrust the police narrative to piggy back off of the the police narrative that was popular at the time. The Petu coached testimony at trial reinforced this and imo was cynical ploy to hit one juror who might have an issue with law enforcement. Cynical ploy.

Flash forward to trial and turns out his supposed major error was the issue of the early reference to FD and MT making 30 stops and dropping 30 bags on Albany Avenue made in the first FD AA. Det kimball on the stand in MT trial explained that this was an honest error made during the early frenzied days of the investigation by an unknown person on the team who watched the first or early cut of video footage. I think any reasonable person could understand how such an error could be made in the early days of an investigation but Horn called Det kimball incompetent and a liar for over 4 years in the press and in his motions based on an honest error.

If Horn on behalf of his client wants to do the work of hiring an expert to question the blood and dna evidence and present these results to the court to support his claims then by all means he should do so.

Thing is though that he didn’t do this. No blood or dna expert at trial. He spent his money instead on Dr Loftus who couldn’t remember anything and the other expert who imo was virtually impossible to understand. I think these choices alone tell us that he wasn’t willing to go toe to toe with the State on blood and dna evidence!

Moo

Knowing he had very little to work with, perhaps JLS decided early to alternate between attacking the physical evidence and the personnel-- including LE and forensic examiners. IMO, this strategy only served to annoy his audience (and waste everybody's time)!

Relative to his non-ending attack on the field testing, I'd never seen anything like it! IMO, it's long understood presumptive field tests for blood are exactly that-- a proof for the possibility of blood where the presumptive sample will go to a controlled environment to officially confirm whether the blood is human and whether the subjects DNA is present.

Seriously, besides reacting to iron in hemoglobin, how many times did we need to hear that Luminol can also react to other oxidizing compounds including cleaning/bleach agents, metals, root vegetables... duh, it's a PRESUMPTIVE test!

Regardless of JLS argument here, there's simply no reasonable explanation why Jennifer's blood should have ever been found on the undercarriage of garaged vehicles. That's just common sense.

 

[citygirl]

Shes wearing orange? @ajksmom does that mean a certain level?

It looks red to me.
High Risk? IDK.

 

[afitzy]

It looks red to me.
High Risk? IDK.

I vote for STOP or BEWARE or HIGH RISK!
MOO

 

[Megnut]

Yep, the issue was the stipulation was mind blowing. AND YET, no consequences and No admonishment from Judge R.

Can you imagine having been Atty's Manning and McMannis and dealing with a miscreant such as Jon Schoenhorn, Esq.?

They must have lost their mind!

No mystery either imo why we saw an AD HOMINEM attack delivered by Atty McMannis in his brilliant closing with such heart felt ENTHUSIASM!

But, I blame the State as well as they had so many opportunities to attempt to sanction and censure Horn and they did zero. Judges did zero too even though Horn was warned on the record, they never followed up with consequences imo.

All quite sad and so Horn will continue Horning for some other sad sap Defendant and simply wasting more Judicial resources in CT.

MOO

I can only hope, as I frost my chocolate croissant, that all his gyrating, thrusting, unpreparing, objecting without objection, testifying without questions, paper shuffling and legal side-stepping contribute directly to a hard stop on appeal. He had every professional courtesy and then some.

That sweatshirt, I could have spit teeth. It comes into his possession. Hello. He agrees to stipulate. Hello. He brings it up in court. Hell to the no.

He so wanted to paint a sweatshirt in any other color than the idiot pedaler wore.

Dress FD however you like he still had a black heart. But honestly, how many different ways did Schoenhorn try to backdoor that? His motion to retry will fall flat.

JMO

 

[Mysticeilis]

Is there a link to watch the full hearing that took place today?

 

[lucegirl]

I vote for STOP or BEWARE or HIGH RISK!
MOO

Red for Giant Red Flag

 

[afitzy]

Knowing he had very little to work with, perhaps JLS decided early to alternate between attacking the physical evidence and the personnel-- including LE and forensic examiners. IMO, this strategy only served to annoy his audience (and waste everybody's time)!

Relative to his non-ending attack on the field testing, I'd never seen anything like it! IMO, it's long understood presumptive field tests for blood are exactly that-- a proof for the possibility of blood where the presumptive sample will go to a controlled environment to officially confirm whether the blood is human and whether the subjects DNA is present.

Seriously, besides reacting to iron in hemoglobin, how many times did we need to hear that Luminol can also react to other oxidizing compounds including cleaning/bleach agents, metals, root vegetables... duh, it's a PRESUMPTIVE test!

Regardless of JLS argument here, there's simply no reasonable explanation why Jennifer's blood should have ever been found on the undercarriage of garaged vehicles. That's just common sense.

Yes, I'm with you on all of this @Seattle1.

But what bothered me greatly listening to him was that he was not censured at the trial when he used the phrase "JUNK SCIENCE" in front of the jury on rinse and repeat to describe presumptive testing. State didn't object and Judge imo could have reprimanded him and had that phrase striken from the record as well but he didn't. Judge did respond brilliantly by going into excruciating detail for the Jury as to what exactly presumptive testing was and why it was used by LE but if Judge hadn't done that then the Jury might have believed total BS from Horn imo.

How many jurors had ever had exposure to the topic of presumptive and confirmatory testing or crime scene investigation etc. Sure people watch shows on TV dealing with crime but to go into KM and luminol etc. isn't something in most people's experience. So, in trial we had a so called 'authority figure' or someone who the Jury wouldn't suspect to be lying to them saying over and over "Junk Science". I simply think this is wrong and it could have had a catastrophic effect too if just one person on that Jury had an innate distrust of law enforcement or the State.

The Horn statements during the trial were often cynically designed to potentially sway the Jury, but what I found wrong about it was that he did it most frequently simply using 'misstatements' aka LIES. Presumptive testing isn't "Junk Science" but he was allowed to make such a statement unquestioned by anyone and in front of the jury and I don't think that should have been allowed.

The "Junk Science" statement is just one of many others that happened at trial courtesy of Horn.

I'm glad the Jury saw through it, but what happened if they hadn't or there were 1-2 jurors that believed it and it hung the jury? This behaviour imo was cynical and planned to deceive or trip up jurors and shouldn't have been permitted to pass unquestioned and it should have been removed from the record.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

Red for Giant Red Flag

@lucegirl, great suggestion.

I'm halfway through a bottle of delightful riesling after a long day in the salt mines but so incensed about today's proceedings that another bottle might be needed.....

Who in their right mind would ask for client release to Miami following conviction for six counts in CT, including conspiracy murder?

Who in their right mind would hold on to a Venezuelan expired passport for 2 years and not return it to the Court as originally requested?

Answer options: (A) Horn, (B) Horn and (C) A + B.

Insanity

 

[lucegirl]

That picture from the video is terrifying. No more hair curtain. I’m trying to imagine how to comb long hair with tangled extensions, with only a prison issued comb, after washing it with prison issued soap, and no conditioner. On side looks shorter than the other like she is trying to pull the extensions out.

The glasses seem off - maybe they just have a bin of used glasses that have been approved by the prison (no piece parts for weapons) that you have to pick one and hope the prescription is close enough.

 

[afitzy]

That picture from the video is terrifying. No more hair curtain. I’m trying to imagine how to comb long hair with tangled extensions, with only a prison issued comb, after washing it with prison issued soap, and no conditioner. On side looks shorter than the other like she is trying to pull the extensions out.

The glasses seem off - maybe they just have a bin of used glasses that have been approved by the prison (no piece parts for weapons) that you have to pick one and hope the prescription is close enough.

Yep, I was wondering if she had perhaps already gotten into a fight and someone grabbed her hair on one side!

It was a YIKES moment for sure.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

Is there a link to watch the full hearing that took place today?

It was online. So, unless Horn leaks it (which he has done in the past when it suited him) I don't think it will be available. I read the guidelines today and the online hearings I don't think are even supposed to be recorded so I'm not sure how the shots got out? Maybe they made an exception for this trial? IDK, but I'm confused how it happened. MOO

 

[lucegirl]

Yep, I was wondering if she had perhaps already gotten into a fight and someone grabbed her hair on one side!

It was a YIKES moment for sure.

MOO

A hair pulling contest - lol!