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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
BJarv said:
I think you have put your finger on one of the great mysteries of this case (other than the body location of the victim).

Logic suggests that MT knows the most likely location of JFD body YET has remained silent. MT was shown via extensive evidence at trial (that she and her family all denied existed) that she effectively bird dogged FD every move and even checked his phone (yep, cheaters are gonna cheat as as a long standing member of the universal cheaters club MT knew exactly what FD was up to all the time and also imo shared it with her 'loving' family). The Civil Trial of FD where MT took the 5th on every deposition question imo also showed that MT knew everything there was to know about FD, FORE and the various shady business dealings. Why remain silent and for so long even post suicide of FD? Why not trade information for a deal? Who could MT be more afraid of than the strong likelihood that she will easily spend over 20 years in prison in CT? MT by virtue of knowing FD/FORE business would have known that there was no construction debris to toss on Albany Ave as none of the houses were under construction. MT would have also known that there was nothing to clean up at 80MS even with the obviously concocted 'house showing'. MT would have known that PG wanted his truck back and yet she played games with the keys. There was no aspect of plan to murder JFD that MT most likely either didn't know or couldn't successfully guess based on prior knowledge and yet she divulged zero to LE. Again, all WHY?

MT also defied the advice of her prior counsel regarding discussion of the Herman report with LE and then proceeded to lie about lies to LE and the former States Atty for over 6 hrs in 3 interviews spread over months. Why?

MT changed attorneys for reasons unknown and then proceeded to vilify prior attorney Bowman on social media for years and via her creepy artist that loves to abuse the first amendment imo, had her new counsel spend years attempting to get the Herman report unsealed in Family Court and have it made available as evidence in her trial (it wasn't but it minds well have had been evidence given how much time MT Attorneys railed about it both to the Press and at Trial, particularly the infamous Atty Felson interviews on the stand of discredited attorneys Meehan (GAL) and Rose).

All this legal activity and fanatical fixation on the useless to her Herman Report was then combined with what I think could generously be called a "NON DEFENSE" by Atty Schoenhorn and Atty Felson who introduced no evidence on behalf of his pathetic client and brought a 'character' witness in the form of Petu who claimed to have earthshattering information but then never said anything and herself seems to have zero grasp of US Legal System and what exactly MT was charged with by the State and why. Defense imo was an absolute sham as who can ever forget the drone footage of Avon Mountain and the endless fixation on cell tower placement and the so called expert who once they hit the stand couldn't seem to even remember her own name? We saw the MT legal team fixated also on kicking out her cell phone from evidence which is also odd imo given that its data could have been used to prove her claim (baseless imo) that she was chatting away on Albany Avenue and had no idea why she was there and what she was doing other than going to get a latte.

Odd too that there were NO character witnesses called at trial. Why? I thought that perhaps the 'farm' where MT was placed as a teen that had a well known expert running the place that might have spoken to MT commitment to horse therapy etc. YET, it appears that this would have been too risky as it would have opened the door as to why MT was at the farm for a prolonged period to being with via cross examination. BUT, other than Petu there was NO character witnesses for MT. I find this curious but actually not surprising as MT really hasn't worked in years, hasn't done any volunteer or charity work and really from the age of 25 made her vocation that of a professional mistress. Curious (but not surprising given the risks present on cross) that neither MT mother nor her daughter were called to testify about their relationship with MT. Not one character witness at trial other than Petu for the person who imo absolutely lacks morals and character! WHY to any of this as the defense lack of strategy and affirmative defense simply made zero sense? Its all made more baffling as MT family has been on social media claiming 'lack of evidence'. Yet, we saw the defense bring zero evidence to the trial to counter the mountain of evidence provided by the State for WEEKS AND WEEKS. Again, WHY to any of this?

MT took her fixation on the Herman report to an illegal level imo via display of the report on her computer at trial and was charged with contempt by Judge Randolph. Again, why the fixation on the report and why risk contempt charge and inevitable conviction prior to sentencing on charges which if stacked could put her in jail for most of her remaining life? WHY?

Given the role of MT mother in pulling the strings of what appears to be virtually every aspect of MT relationship (and FD divorce action in Family Court) with FD and then in the defense of MT, I remain puzzled why a battle hardened legal street fighter like the convicted non-felon via diversion agreement didn't see the strategic value of an early plea? WHY? OR, did MT continue what appears to be a lifelong propensity to lie about lies and chose to lie to her family and they allowed it happen? Why? The family had the prior counsel of Atty Bowman who very clearly was advocating for negotiated plea of some sort and unless Jon Schoenhorn is even dimmer than he appeared to be at trial he must have prepared MT and her family for the low probability of success at trial given the mountain of evidence that existed. Again, WHY? Collective delusion? Excessive reliance on appeal? Poor legal representation at trial?

The questions are endless imo starting with why not work a plea the day after FD died if you didn't want to do it while he was still alive?

MOO
Click to expand...
I don’t think you left one point out!!! I’m gobsmacked how you wrapped this tragedy up in a few paragraphs! mt is evil.
 
Seattle1 said:
Right up there with bail reform where killers are now able to get bond, I was also very surprised to learn about post conviction proffers being made by convicted inmates (i.e., Florida).

I don't know if (post conviction proffer) applies in CT but MT may be waiting out the sentencing of KM before opening up to prosecutors about the possible location of Jennifer's remains.

IMO, MT's probably weighing the options between filing for an appeal following sentencing, or wanting to renegotiate her sentence. Whatever action she takes, it's going to be all about MT.
Click to expand...

When I asked about proffers post conviction, I wasn't aware of this CT law from 2021 where convicted inmates who qualify may seek to modify their sentences every 5 years!

July 1, 2021

Gov. Ned Lamont signed a bill this week that will make it easier for anyone sentenced after a trial or to more than seven years to get time shaved off their sentence for transforming themselves behind bars.

“This is the biggest change to sentence modifications since the law went into effect in 1982,” Alex Tsarkov, executive director of the state’s Sentencing Commission, said.

The change in the law doesn’t get rid of sentences, but rather allows more people to have access to a hearing on whether their sentence should be modified, Tsarkov said. “It opens the door to more people who may be eligible,” he said.

Under the new law those who qualify for a hearing can seek one every five years if their first attempt at a sentence modification is turned down by a judge.

During the hearings, evidence of the inmate’s transformation into a person who should be freed into society can be presented. Victims and prosecutors can also speak in favor or against the early release.

New Sentencing Law Signed
 
Jmoose said:
Would you think that there would be character witnesses to speak on MT’s behalf, prior to sentencing next week? I suppose we aren’t looking for her family to drone on about her motherly attributes, or Petu…and ultimately, what good might it do? I think Judge Randolph already has a pretty good idea what he is going to do, anyway, and doubt that anything that someone could say about her will change his mind. And-these Troconises cannot seem to help themselves from the usual self-serving opportunity to make this terrible story, all about them and their precious Michi. I wonder how that’ll fly?
Click to expand...
IMO, I think any character references have already been contacted by the probation officials responsible for preparing the presentence investigation report (PSI) prepared for Judge Randolph.

I think this is unique to the eastern states including CT that do not immediately sentence the defendant upon the jury rendering the verdict. Here, the court will have had almost 3 months from verdict to the sentencing of MT.

The probation department is in charge of preparing the PSI. This report also goes by the name “probation report.” This department prepares the reports because the probation department is a neutral party in a case. The report does not have ties to the prosecution or the defense and can therefore make a fair report. A PSI includes the following information concerning a defendant:

  • Their criminal history.
  • Their employment history.
  • Details of the offense the defendant faces charges for.
  • Their personal history.
  • Victims’ statements.
  • Sentencing recommendation for the defendant.

Pre Sentence Investigation - Ruane Attorneys At Law, LLC

Pre sentence investigation reports (PSIs) constitute reports given to a judge. They determine how long a sentence should last for someone found
www.ruaneattorneys.com www.ruaneattorneys.com
 
Seattle1 said:
When I asked about proffers post conviction, I wasn't aware of this CT law from 2021 where convicted inmates who qualify may seek to modify their sentences every 5 years!

July 1, 2021

Gov. Ned Lamont signed a bill this week that will make it easier for anyone sentenced after a trial or to more than seven years to get time shaved off their sentence for transforming themselves behind bars.

“This is the biggest change to sentence modifications since the law went into effect in 1982,” Alex Tsarkov, executive director of the state’s Sentencing Commission, said.

The change in the law doesn’t get rid of sentences, but rather allows more people to have access to a hearing on whether their sentence should be modified, Tsarkov said. “It opens the door to more people who may be eligible,” he said.

Under the new law those who qualify for a hearing can seek one every five years if their first attempt at a sentence modification is turned down by a judge.

During the hearings, evidence of the inmate’s transformation into a person who should be freed into society can be presented. Victims and prosecutors can also speak in favor or against the early release.

New Sentencing Law Signed
Click to expand...
IANAL and have not perused or read all of this, but not unlike seeking parole - one would hope that any allowance or sentence modification would also include a mandatory admission of guilt by the convicted / defendant.

And if not, any measure to reduce or adjust a sentence without that seems IMO preposterous and ill-advised. MOO
 
I am not Sherlock H. said:
IANAL and have not perused or read all of this, but not unlike seeking parole - one would hope that any allowance or sentence modification would also include an admission of guilt by the convicted / defendant.

And if not, any measure to reduce or adjust a sentence without that seems IMO preposterous and ill-advised. MOO
Click to expand...
I agree. It's probably similar to parole release where I don't think the board looks upon an inmate with any sincerity if they can't first admit the crime of which they were convicted.

Passed in 2021, I don't think the Sentence Modification rate is expected to be high. This is the only individual I've read about thus far:

[Clyde] Meikle’s impressive record and students’ advocacy persuaded the Hartord State’s Attorney’s office to agree to permit his case to go before a judge.

law.yale.edu

Road to Redemption

Clyde Meikle dedicated himself while incarcerated to self-improvement, rehabilitation, and service. With the help of Law School students in the Peter Gruber Challenging Mass Incarceration Clinic, Meikle was resentenced to 28 years in January 2021 and was released from prison in May.
law.yale.edu law.yale.edu
 
Seattle1 said:
When I asked about proffers post conviction, I wasn't aware of this CT law from 2021 where convicted inmates who qualify may seek to modify their sentences every 5 years!

July 1, 2021

Gov. Ned Lamont signed a bill this week that will make it easier for anyone sentenced after a trial or to more than seven years to get time shaved off their sentence for transforming themselves behind bars.

“This is the biggest change to sentence modifications since the law went into effect in 1982,” Alex Tsarkov, executive director of the state’s Sentencing Commission, said.

The change in the law doesn’t get rid of sentences, but rather allows more people to have access to a hearing on whether their sentence should be modified, Tsarkov said. “It opens the door to more people who may be eligible,” he said.

Under the new law those who qualify for a hearing can seek one every five years if their first attempt at a sentence modification is turned down by a judge.

During the hearings, evidence of the inmate’s transformation into a person who should be freed into society can be presented. Victims and prosecutors can also speak in favor or against the early release.

New Sentencing Law Signed
Click to expand...
Yes, this highly controversial law was signed by Gov. Lamont and seems to be part of a multi year long range plan in CT to have convicted individuals spend less time in prison. The law follows on the heels of a multi year program by legislators in CT and also NY to both facilitate early release and reduce or eliminate jail time entirely for various crimes. These trends have particularly impacted the so called 'quality of life crimes' segment in particular in both CT and NY with the situation in NYC right now dire imo for its unfortunate residents.

I'd have to go back and look at the latest avg. sentences served stats in CT, but my recollection is that convicted individuals serve roughly 44% of their sentence in CT. The guidelines established in the bill signed by Gov Lamont I believe were the same ones that allowed the infamous "Woodchipper Murderer" Richard Craft who murdered, froze and put his wife through a woodchipper with her remains then put into a local river. Here is an article from a local paper about his early release following his sentence of 50 years received in 1989 and had been in prison in CT since 1987 (he was released in 2020 at age 82 back into the local community via a half way house!). Richard Crafts Moved To Homeless Shelter For Veterans. Richard Crafts Transferred To Garner

My very sad guess is that it will be a 'good result' if MT serves 20 years in CT prison and my even sadder guess is that she just might serve less than that. I can only imagine the impact of seeing these prisoners released early has on LE, State Prosecutors and Judges as it just seems like a revolving door of criminals. CT also is not an easy state for any victim of crime to achieve justice as even with the COVID impact on trial timing, it took nearly 4 years for MT to be brought to trial and KM oddly enough still has no trial date for his role as a co-conspirator.

Its quite sobering (and not in a good way imo) to listen to hearings related to federal and state judicial appointments in NY and CT to see much of the current thinking on prisoner release or even bail or bond pending trial etc. These programs so far as I can tell have imo been very much a social experiment actively taking place in CT and NY. The crime statistics in NY (NYC is particular) have become alarming imo with repeat crimes by violent reoffenders seeming to grow exponentially. CT crime stats, particularly in the areas adjacent to neighboring NY are on the rise too and Gov. Lamont has come under considerable fire recently for some heinous crimes perpetrated by repeat offenders that were released early or never placed in jail to being with pending trial. Gov. Lamont continues to publicly say that 'crime is down' in CT but has yet to provide statistics to counter the information released by local police departments and experienced by citizens.

All of these trends imo have hard hit DV criminals in particular in CT and I was particularly struck by a recent bulletin from the NCPD that said, "DV is NC's VIOLENT CRIME". In CT and I'm sure elsewhere its not just DV in NC but its everywhere and its routinely reported in MSM when its highly violent but little ever seems to change to improve the lot of DV victims in CT. CT has an Office of Victims Advocate but its frankly unclear what they have done to improve the situation and they certainly had zero impact advocating for JFD in the MT pre trial and trial period as confidential and sealed information from Family Court was leaked and publicly disclosed to the Press repeatedly by FD, Norm Pattis, Jon Schoenhorn, Audrey Felson and Michael Rose and Michael Meehan - all attorney by the way with zero consequences and the Victims Advocates in Stamford and Hartford asleep at their desks and not answering the phones imo. Its a sad state of affairs in CT as imo the reported DV crimes become increasingly violent and DV continues to be very much an underreported crime (discussed in the podcast link below by a local DV advocacy and support group).

In looking at the DV statistics I do wonder if any of the calls made by JFD to NCPD or Farmington PD were escalated due to perception by the NCPD or Farmington PD that violence was existing or probable in the future? LE is first line of defense on DV and oftentimes I wonder at the training level of LE? I feel for LE as their safety is at risk every time they attend a DV call and in CT tragically numerous police officers have lost their lives responding to DV calls.

Links: New Canaan Police | Domestic Violence

New Canaan Police | Podcast, 0684-Radi0: Suzanne Adam, Executive Director, Domestic Violence Crisis Center

newcanaanpolice.org newcanaanpolice.org

Here are some excerpts from the NCPD bulletin and imo they are staggering for a small town particularly given the estimate percentage of DV crime that is not reported:

"Although our Town has a very low crime rate, crimes such as domestic violence have remained constant over many years. Domestic violence is New Canaan’s violent crime. If you live in New Canaan, and you are the victim of violence, it is highly probable that the perpetrator is someone that you love".

"In 2021, our department investigated 64 family dispute incidents. This is a 36% increase compared to the same time period in 2020 when our Department investigated 47 family dispute incidents. To be clear, not all of these incidents are classified as domestic violence. Yet, it is likely that despite this increase, the prevalence of domestic violence in our Town is much greater than what is reported due to chronic under reporting by victims".

"Domestic violence can happen to anyone in any community regardless of age, economic status, race, religion, gender, nationality or educational background. We all need to work together on both preventing domestic violence and getting help for those in our community that are victims of domestic violence".

MOO
 
Last edited:
Seattle1 said:
IMO, I think any character references have already been contacted by the probation officials responsible for preparing the presentence investigation report (PSI) prepared for Judge Randolph.

I think this is unique to the eastern states including CT that do not immediately sentence the defendant upon the jury rendering the verdict. Here, the court will have had almost 3 months from verdict to the sentencing of MT.

The probation department is in charge of preparing the PSI. This report also goes by the name “probation report.” This department prepares the reports because the probation department is a neutral party in a case. The report does not have ties to the prosecution or the defense and can therefore make a fair report. A PSI includes the following information concerning a defendant:

  • Their criminal history.
  • Their employment history.
  • Details of the offense the defendant faces charges for.
  • Their personal history.
  • Victims’ statements.
  • Sentencing recommendation for the defendant.

Pre Sentence Investigation - Ruane Attorneys At Law, LLC

Pre sentence investigation reports (PSIs) constitute reports given to a judge. They determine how long a sentence should last for someone found
www.ruaneattorneys.com www.ruaneattorneys.com
Click to expand...
Sadly these documents prepared in CT so far as I am aware are unfortunately NOT public. Victims can choose to speak at sentencing but their written statements I don't believe are public record.

I think when I referenced 'character references' I meant it broadly to include anyone brought in to testify by the Defense that had anything remotely positive to say about about MT or a positive experience with her. Even Petu didn't really relay anything positive about MT other than to say she knew her for 8 years iirc and they did business together and were iir "soul sisters".

I also keep thinking about the Murder Eve Dinner Guests that the Defense trotted out at trial and their well scripted testimony along the lines of "All was Good" and "Everyone was Happy" etc. did not include anything specific really to MT as a person which I found quite odd in retrospect. We had the RE Agents wife on the stand talking about learning spanish in 10 days or something along those lines and speaking more about that issue than anything about MT. Why? And then who could forget the 'King of the Pond" testimony who also iirc didn't really speak about MT in any meaningful way even though he clearly knew her and had been a 'friend' of FD for many years. All quite odd that none of these people said much of anything about MT and not one anecdote that I can recall either. Were they instructed not to or did they simply have nothing to say about her because she was a ghost? Odd imo as they all clearly knew her and done so for awhile.

I also wonder if MT simply doesn't make friends? She no doubt had come into contact with many people in the area via her daughters sports activities and local school participation and not one of these people that I can recall came forward to speak on behalf of MT that I can recall. I think there were local people interviewed that iirc said they were surprised with the arrest and charges but no strong statements to say that they didn't believe MT was guilty. All very odd imo.

MOO

MOO
 
pernickety said:
So I read the ACLU sum-up on their website. So did anyone write about what the records revealed? Why was the Chief terminated? Did anyone request police records re the death of Fotis Dulos' mother in the so-called accident involving the nanny who was allegedly driving the car that hit her?
Click to expand...
I remember the police reports from the driveway being published maybe in summer 2019, I just can't remember by who/where, if I find them again I can send them.

No word on why he was terminated yet, looks like there was some movement in the lower court that had heard the case in 2022 after this, some follow up where it seems like the town was dragging their feet still, Sastre wanted the document published, the judge denied that, but the town confirmed it had sent him the records approximately a week ago, the 15th. Whatever the incidents were that led to his hasty dismissal they took place between 6/20/18 - 10/25/19.

 

Attachments

  • 1 .png
    1 .png
    169.1 KB · Views: 10
  • 2.png
    2.png
    775.2 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
Nanobody said:
I remember the police reports from the driveway being published maybe in summer 2019, I just can't remember by who/where, if I find them again I can send them.

No word on why he was terminated yet, looks like there was some movement in the lower court that had heard the case in 2022 after this, some follow up where it seems like the town was dragging their feet still, Sastre wanted the document published, the judge denied that, but the town confirmed it had sent him the records approximately a week ago, the 15th. Whatever the incidents were that led to his hasty dismissal they took place between 6/20/18 - 10/25/19.

Click to expand...
I'm still baffled that the "burning fireplace seeker" last week or so, made it a point to show the ex-chiefs house having a fire going in the middle of May.
 
Cloudydiamond said:
It's not hard to figure out. He mentioned he was .05 miles from 4JX, and took a close up of the house number.
Click to expand...
I'll bet money someone WAS HOME at the time of the fire.

And there was no associated missing person.

It's the totality of the evidence...

Hey, does anybody know -- do they have skiing at prison? Alpine or waterskiing, no need to be picky.

Oh, snap. Neither.

Bummer, Honey Buns.

JMO
 
Megnut said:
I'll bet money someone WAS HOME at the time of the fire.

And there was no associated missing person.

It's the totality of the evidence...

Hey, does anybody know -- do they have skiing at prison? Alpine or waterskiing, no need to be picky.

Oh, snap. Neither.

Bummer, Honey Buns.

JMO
Click to expand...
My recollection from seeing the drone footage overview of the prison was that there was what looked to be large lake adjacent to the prison. I do wonder if it is part of the prison so will have to check that out. Perhaps prisoner whatever her number is can start a waterskiing program to keep the prisoners in tip top shape! I do wonder how MT is getting her daily steps in at prison and what 'enrichment' programs she has started?

I keep thinking though about the pre sentencing report that isn't made public. Does anyone know whether it is sealed or could a FOIA request make it public? Asking for a friend....

MOO
 
BJarv said:
I keep thinking though about the pre sentencing report that isn't made public. Does anyone know whether it is sealed or could a FOIA request make it public? Asking for a friend....
Click to expand...
^^rsbm

I've never searched a defendants PSI report in CT but it appears that only Criminal Convictions are available online, and Criminal History Reports by the CT State Police.


However, in U.S. District Court, I know some PSI reports prepared for federal judges are sealed, and others are heavily redacted. I believe this in part could be that a defendant may view the PSI report in advance of sentencing, and can dispute information in the report they don't agree with. MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 103 more.
Total: 328 (members: 104, guests: 224)

Online statistics

Members online
104
Guests online
224
Total visitors
328
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,475
Messages
18,239,928
Members
234,385
Latest member
johnwich
Back
Top