Thanks again for the link! Yup, the common denominator Meehan who opened his mouth and tried to shut the barn door after the horses fled...
From OP's quoted link:
Meehan told Judge Donna Heller he wants any copies of the psychological report turned over to him. [..]
Judge Heller said, “I am concerned the report was not protected” the way I envisioned when entering order.
She said the report will stay under seal, available for lawyers to read, but not have copies of themselves. [..]
Greenwich attorney Wayne Effron, who is representing Jennifer Dulos, is also asking for Michael Meehan to be removed as the court-appointed guardian at litem for the five Dulos children. Effron has accused Meehan of wrongly releasing the evaluation to Fotis Dulos and his attorneys.
Meehan, a Bridgeport attorney, had filed his own motion on Monday, seeking sanctions against Pattis for violating the court order. Meehan accused Pattis, who is representing Fotis Dulos in his criminal and divorce cases, of making statements to the media about information contained in the evaluation.[..]
Pattis has also filed motions this week, requesting the evaluation be unsealed because he feels it will help his client’s criminal defense and for Fotis Dulos to get custody of his children.
IDK, seems like an obvious and clumsy CYA move by Atty Meehan when as you say the "horses have left the barn".
But, I'm simply not sure of the timeline of events as the first event was FD/Atty Michael Rose meeting with Atty Meehan in his office and I'm now quite curious as to exactly when Atty Meehan undertook to have any copies of the report turned over to him and then when he had the initial interaction with Judge Heller to say a report/s was/were gone? Must have been phone/email text trail too imo. All of this drama surrounding the report heated up shortly before JFD was murdered iirc as that was when the investigation report was given to Judge Heller.
I do wonder if initially Atty Meehan had let the report be 'borrowed' but then FD and Atty Michael Rose wouldn't return the report? But, I would think there would be calls or texts or some communication amongst the trio and so perhaps this is what the investigation that Judge Heller eventually ordered and in fact she perhaps discovered that all three of them were involved? I would love to see that investigation report but sadly that isn't possible!
I do wonder if Judge Heller smelled a rat in all of this highly sus commentary from Atty Meehan and then ordered her investigation because nothing he was saying made much sense? We do know that following the investigation report that she terminated Atty Michael Rose but then Judge Heller had to leave Atty Meehan in place as JF was missing/murdered and the Court needed continuity with the children.
The bottom line imo is that Atty Meehan was charged with following the orders of Judge Heller and its clear that he failed in this regard. Instead of reporting the theft of the Herman report by FD and Atty Michael Rose, he didn't posture the event as a theft but acknowledged that 'somehow' a copy of the report had left his office. I can see why Judge Heller was incandescent as this simply seemed like a coverup of a event that was perpetrated by FD/Atty Michael Rose/Atty Meehan and that none of them had followed her carefully crafted instructions and it seemed probable that all parties involved had lied to her.
The other thing that is odd about the description of the Effron motion in the above article was that Effron and JFD had other longstanding issues with Atty Meehan (favoring FD and his gross negligence in the mental health care of the Dulos older son etc.) other than the Herman report but the article doesn't mention these issues but perhaps its because the focus of the article is on the Herman report? IDK.
I also very much wonder if at the point in time that Pattis was asking for the report to be unsealed whether he had been made privy to the report via FD illegal copy that he had stolen with the assistance of Atty Rose/Atty Meehan? My guess is yes as I'm not sure he would simply try to unseal a Family Court document on the word of FD? But, perhaps he was that desperate and so believed FD about the substance of the report? Not sure that Atty Pattis can be believed about anything regarding the Herman Report as he is the same imo corrupt attorney that had the box of evidence from the murder and chose to not turn it over to CSP. Atty Pattis simply proved himself to be one of those defence attorneys that would say and do anything on behalf of a client and who had not an ounce of respect for the rules or the Judges handling the case imo.
Pattis iirc during that period was throwing out one crazy statement after another to the Press and I wonder if he had received inside information from his moles at CSP/Hartford PD etc. that the evidence against FD was damning and this move to unseal the report was just him blowing more smoke and attempting to find something that he could hang his hat on to defend FD and gain custody for FD?
Frankly I would have thought that Pattis knew FD was doomed simply after reading the AA but given the theatrical bent of Pattis the idea of screaming to the Press that the Herman report would help FD defence when he knew the probability of having the report unsealed was nil to none seems like something he would do. He could make wacky constitutional arguments all day long and create a cloud of smoke around something that was simply irrelevant. That time period also was a total circus and Pattis was the ringmaster and what better thing to scream about wanting was something that you couldn't access as it was sealed and what better thing to talk about than something that nobody else in the public domaine could read and so could never confirm that what you are saying is true or not? IDK, seems like a classic Pattis smoke and mirrors game and Schoenhorn being the dim bulb that he is (ditto for MT) simply carried out the same game with the Herman report.
What I have never understood is why not one of the Judges that had access to the Herman report simply didn't call BS on the Pattis claim that the report would help the FD defence and then ban the attorney's from speaking about the Herman report? The report could have remained sealed imo and all the chaos surrounding the report could have been eliminated if this was handled pretrial, hearing closed and all motions and documents sealed by the Judge etc. All of the subsequent references to the report by Pattis and Schoenhorn and MT and her family could have been shut down had Judge Blawie handled things differently. The reality is though that Judge Randolph at a later date also could have taken the issue behind closed doors and corrected the earlier decision (imo an error) by Judge Blawie and things imo would have turned out better than what we all sadly saw play out which was a farce and something that imo could very well have turned the jury and fixated them on something that in reality had no value to either FD or MT. IDK, simply seems like a series of judicial errors that were then simply exploited by Pattis and Schoenhorn as they both had clients that needed a 'hail mary pass' and what better way to do it than using a report that nobody could see to read.
Its all a farce imo as the report was never available to Pattis in a form that he could use in court on FD behalf and ditto for Schoenhorn and MT. But both attorney's used the report in the press to shade JFD and they were able to do this because no Judge stood up and removed the report from the discussion via direct order early in the pretrial period. The report hung over the MT trial like a ghost and it could have created major problems with the jury but I'm glad the jury saw beyond the smoke and mirrors of Schoenhorn on the issue and trusted that Judge Randolph excluding the report from being submitted as evidence in the trial had a sound basis. But, I could see one juror possibly not agreeing with this decision by Judge Randolph and its for this reason that I fault both Judge Blawie and Judge Randolph for not nipping the entire issue in the bud much earlier so that the report never became an issue of consideration for the jury.
MOO
