GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #70

[Seattle1]

Does anyone know where I can read some of Jennifer’s writings? I have read her articles in the Patch.com, but if there was anything else I would love to read it. CL mentioned something she wrote in the 1990’s in her closing victim statement, for example.

I believe CL was quoting from a play written by Jennifer. To my knowledge, only the blog pieces by Jennifer are currently in public domain.

 

[Seattle1]

Perhaps he was afraid of sentencing appeal for whatever reason as he has run this entire trial from the standpoint of appeal risk imo? Perhaps he was told by the Admin Judge or some other senior Judge what the sentence was to be?

^^rsbm

Strange, isn't it that a Judge would temper his ruling out of fear of the appellate court?

In the cases and Judges I cited in my quoted post, as expected, the defendants all filed appeals but at least these Judges know they have the respect and support of the public and the victims for their passionate, non-robotic sentencing.

Nonetheless, thanks for confirming that Judge Randolph's definition of sentencing pursuant to CT legislation, intentionally a "dispassionate experience," is not the norm.

Also, I'll try to pull a transcript of Randolph's most alarming statements. JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Jun 1, 2024
Raymond Hassett, an attorney at Hassett & George, P.C., confirms MT will likely serve less than 14.5 years in prison.

 

[MollyDDD]

I believe CL was quoting from a play written by Jennifer. To my knowledge, only the blog pieces by Jennifer are currently in public domain.

Perhaps one day, one or possibly all, will follow in their Mother’s footsteps and will write a book in honor of her.

 

[MollyDDD]

^^rsbm

Strange, isn't it that a Judge would temper his ruling out of fear of the appellate court?

In the cases and Judges I cited in my quoted post, as expected, the defendants all filed appeals but at least these Judges know they have the respect and support of the public and the victims for their passionate, non-robotic sentencing.

Nonetheless, thanks for confirming that Judge Randolph's definition of sentencing pursuant to CT legislation, intentionally a "dispassionate experience," is not the norm.

Also, I'll try to pull a transcript of Randolph's most alarming statements. JMO

Thank you for your expertise in explaining these things that some of us aren’t aware of.

 

[Seattle1]

Randolph Sentencing comments begin at 5:39:44 (YT court feed):

Court's back in session good afternoon your honor good afternoon please be
5:39:54
[Music]
5:39:59
seated court has heard the remarks of council
5:40:11
remarks from family
5:40:17
members the remarks from what the court would consider victims of the
5:40:26
[Music] crime almost always there is no
5:40:32
single appropriate sentence other wise the legislature
5:40:38
would have designated a single appropriate sentence for every
5:40:46
offense the charges here are conspiracy to commit murder which is a class B
5:40:53
felony the legislature has set the sentencing
5:40:59
range not less than one year nor more than 20 years
5:41:09
which means the legislature contemplated in some
5:41:14
instances sentences of no more than a year and in the same instance sentences
5:41:22
of 20 years the legislature has
5:41:27
given the Judiciary
5:41:34
arrange conspiracy to tamper with physical EV evidence is a Class D
5:41:39
Felony maximum 5
5:41:46
years tampering with physical evidence a Class D Felony maximum 5
5:41:53
years hindering prosecution is a class C felony not less than one year nor more
5:42:00
than 10 years
5:42:07
the court relies on what the law states and what the law allows to be
5:42:14
proper considerations setting a
5:42:21
sentence the court relies on the nature and circumstances of the
5:42:27
offense the history and background and character of the
5:42:35
offender after such consideration the court turns to what are called the
5:42:40
traditional purposes of sentencing specific
5:42:46
deterrence General deterrence punishment
5:42:54
incapacitation Rehabilitation vocational or educational
5:43:00
training and medical treatment those factors are not all
5:43:06
given equal wait depending on the nature and circumstances of the
5:43:11
offense and the history background and character of the
5:43:24
offender the court does not take
5:43:31
sides if the court knew possibly any one of you and had a bond with any one of you this court would not have tried that
5:43:43
case it's not the Court's role to side or favor one side or
5:43:55
another sentencing in many ways is a dispassionate
5:44:01
exercise the court has no bond with any individual who spoke to
5:44:10
or any other individual involved in the
5:44:16
case the court cannot develop the passions that one side or the other
5:44:28
has in State versus UI that's 199 Connecticut 121 at 126 a 1986 case
5:44:37
the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the sentencing court may consider information that would be inadmissible
5:44:44
at trial for the purpose of
5:44:50
sancy that same Court held that evidence of crimes for which the defendant was
5:44:56
indicted but neither tried nor convicted may be considered
5:45:02
well the word indicted and the process of indictment
5:45:08
is not generally employed in Connecticut essentially that means where there has
5:45:13
been a finding of probable cause but there has been no trial or no
5:45:20
conviction additionally as a matter of due process the court may consider information that has a minimum indicia
5:45:27
of reliability now that minimum indic of reliability is not limited to
5:45:35
unfavorable information Court can consider favorable favorable information
5:45:40
that has a minimum indic of
5:45:46
reliability the court certainly considers the victim impact
5:45:55
statements every victim has the right to be heard before the court sentences a
5:46:00
defendant that's part of the Connecticut victims Bill of Rights
5:46:08
which is read every day in every Courthouse here in Connecticut the court would
5:46:16
clarify what it perceives
5:46:22
as perhaps a misconception of what the Court's role
5:46:29
is the court does not deliberate with the jury
5:46:37
the court does not deliberate on the evidence at all the court hears the evidence as the
5:46:44
evidence comes into the to the
5:46:51
record so when you hear that the court has a view of the evidence the court has no view of
5:46:58
the evidence what the court has is a
5:47:04
verdict and what could would have been the reasonable and logical
5:47:10
inferences from the evidence that was adduced the court would not know what the jury discussed over those many
5:47:33
hours what the court can find is
5:47:42
this it was clear during the jury charge
5:47:47
jury instructions that the court instructed the jury that it may draw any reasonable and logical inferences from
5:47:55
the facts found to have been
5:48:00
proven based on the verdict the jury could have found the
5:48:07
following reasonable and logical inferences fotus doulos was not
5:48:15
home at Fort Jefferson Crossing the morning of May
5:48:21
24th when his wife was murdered but the defendant said he was
5:48:32
out when the defendant admitted that he was not home
5:48:38
the defendant who had been angry about
5:48:44
dulos's talking to other women did not even ask him where he had
5:48:57
been the defendant who was angry that he had visited his his wife did not ask him
5:49:05
if he had visited her in fact the defendant as the court
5:49:10
remembers the evidence didn't ask him
5:49:17
anything the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant knew where he was and knew
5:49:24
what he was
5:49:31
doing the defendant said she saw Kent mnny and fotus doulos together in the
5:49:37
office at Fort Jefferson Crossing on the morning of May
5:49:43
24th but the defendant did not see fotus doulos and K mnni in the office at Fort
5:49:50
Jefferson Crossing on the morning of May
5:49:57
24 there was a phone call made to dulos's phone which doulos left
5:50:04
intentionally at Fort Jefferson Crossing the defendant answered
5:50:10
it and the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference from all of the
5:50:15
evidence that the defendant answered the phone to make it appear that doulos took
5:50:21
the call himself on the morning of May 24th at
5:50:27
Fort Jefferson Crossing when he was really on his way to or in new
5:50:35
Canan when I a police officer came to Fort Jefferson Crossing soon after the
5:50:40
murder the defendant did not even go to the door even though her daughter who was
5:50:48
not home may have been the subject of that
5:50:55
conversation at the door now it has been clear that the defendant cares deeply for her daughter
5:51:03
the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant did not go to the
5:51:09
door because the defendant knew the reason the officer was there to find out more about The
5:51:15
Disappearance of Jennifer
5:51:22
du these are reasonable and logical inferences from the facts that were
5:51:28
induced of the case during the trial the defendant traveled through a
5:51:34
part of Harford with doulos as he dumps the bloody clothing of his
5:51:40
wife the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that on the same
5:51:48
day the defendant helped him pretend he was home in the morning but in the evening accompanied
5:51:56
him to get rid of the evidence the defendant's DNA profile was
5:52:02
found on one of the bags disposed of in Hartford the jury could draw a reasonable and
5:52:09
logical inference that the defendant helped dispose of the evidence
5:52:17
knowingly the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant helped fotus dulos's
5:52:23
cleanup traces of evidence at 80 Mountain Spring Road because the defendant and doulos
5:52:31
were there together cleaning on the same day that the coma
5:52:37
traveled to new
5:52:44
Canan this is a flurry of irregular activity all on the same
5:52:55
day the jury could draw a reasonable and logical
5:53:00
inference that the activities of that day were so irregular that the defendant
5:53:06
could not possibly forget them in the span of two
5:53:16
weeks even if the jurors individually had doubts about the defendant's
5:53:23
guilt each one of them ultimately concluded that their doubts were not
5:53:33
reasonable this is not a view of the the Court's view of the
5:53:41
evidence these are logical and reasonable inferences that the jury could have
5:53:52
drawn court is going to talk a little about the philosophy of
5:53:57
sentencing
5:54:09
sentencing is not the product of the Court's passions or
5:54:14
prejudices the court doesn't have a bond with anyone involved in the
5:54:20
case it's a dispassionate
5:54:29
exercise the court did not investigate the case the court did not talk to the
5:54:34
victims the court has no conversation with the defendant or the defendant's
5:54:44
family so there are some questions that are age-old does the court the senten in
5:54:52
court adopt the public appr probium the indignation of the
5:55:04
community when does retribution turn into
5:55:13
Revenge what's the role of
5:55:20
empathy should the court exercise sympathy for one side or
5:55:30
another these are age- old questions
5:55:38
the court relies on what the law
5:55:44
says the court can consider the nature and circumstances of the offense the
5:55:51
history background and character of the
5:55:58
offender every exercise is not an either or or exercise
5:56:08
often the good and the bad are
5:56:19
true what is the purpose of the Court taking into consideration the victim impact
5:56:28
statements is that only for the purpose of sympathy
5:56:36
the court uses the victim impact statements to assign in its view the
5:56:41
proper weight to any one of those traditional purposes of
5:56:51
sentencing sentencing is not arbitrary or capricious it's not a matter of how the judge feels that
5:57:03
day Court wants to also address what has become over the
5:57:09
course of perhaps
5:57:14
centuries perhaps not a cliche Michelle Trona says life is in
5:57:20
your hands Michelle tron's life is in her own
5:57:27
hands what Michelle tronis decides to do today tomorrow and the next day is up to
5:57:34
her from what the court has heard she has a
5:57:41
great deal to offer court has no control over what her
5:57:48
decisions will be her life is
5:57:57
hers the following sentences are going to run
5:58:04
concurrently on the count charge in conspiracy to commit murder 20 years execution suspended
5:58:11
after 14 A2 years to serve 5 years probation tampering with physical
5:58:18
evidence 5 years execution suspended after four years 5 years
5:58:24
probation conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence 5 years execution suspended after 4 years 5 years
5:58:34
probation the second count of tampering with physical evidence 5 years execution suspended after four years 5 years
5:58:43
probation hindering prosecution 5 years execution suspended after four years
5:58:48
probation after four years rather 5 years probation total effective sentence
5:58:54
20 years execution suspended after 14 and 1/2 years 5 years
5:59:03
probation you will have an opportunity to challenge every finding that the jury made and
5:59:10
every ruling that the court made Madam clerk you can give the defendant her notice of right to
5:59:20
appeal judge I'm going to um orally state that Mr kones does intend to appeal I'm going to ask the court to set
5:59:27
a reasonable appeal Bond I will state that
5:59:33
um this the uh the appeal bond that the court set was not something that Miss
5:59:39
tronus or her family were able to uh meet I'm asking for something more in
5:59:44
line with what she had been released on bond for for the last five years I would
5:59:49
note that after your honor went on vacation the state asked for additional conditions which included um making her
5:59:58
move to Connecticut and remain within the bounds of Connecticut my position
6:00:04
your honor is the court obviously took that into consideration when it set that
6:00:09
high bond that she was not a resident of Connecticut because that's what the state had then argued I'm asking that if
6:00:16
there if she's going to be released that the court said a $2 million Bond but with a condition that to reside in
6:00:23
Connecticut and not leave without permission and cour is going well Council court is going to decline to set
6:00:29
a an appeal Bond it's not a constitutional right
6:00:36
has the defendant sign the notice of right to appeal stand to journ All
6:01:04
Rise

Court feed -- unedited transcript MT sentencing for Jennifer Dulos case

 

[Cool Cats]

Watch Gone Mom: The Disappearance of Jennifer Dulos | Lifetime

www.mylifetime.com

 

[MollyDDD]

Jun 1, 2024
Raymond Hassett, an attorney at Hassett & George, P.C., confirms MT will likely serve less than 14.5 years in prison.

 

[MollyDDD]

@iamnotsherlockH, YES! The goal with this wonderful promotion was to provide a full service experience where the participants would effectively go, "UP IN SMOKE"!

MOO

A great movie too.

 

[Seattle1]

Perhaps one day, one or possibly all, will follow in their Mother’s footsteps and will write a book in honor of her.

I definitely think it will happen! In Jennifer Farber Dulos: The Untold Story, aired on News8, featuring Gloria Farber, she expresses that she'd like a book of Jennifer's life and art.

Jennifer Farber Dulos: The Untold Story

In a News 8 exclusive, Jennifer Farber Dulos’ mother shares stories about her daughter.

www.wtnh.com

 

[Silverstorm]

I believe CL was quoting from a play written by Jennifer. To my knowledge, only the blog pieces by Jennifer are currently in public domain.

Thank you!

 

[BJarv]

Randolph Sentencing comments begin at 5:39:44 (YT court feed):

Court's back in session good afternoon your honor good afternoon please be
5:39:54
[Music]
5:39:59
seated court has heard the remarks of council
5:40:11
remarks from family
5:40:17
members the remarks from what the court would consider victims of the
5:40:26
[Music] crime almost always there is no
5:40:32
single appropriate sentence other wise the legislature
5:40:38
would have designated a single appropriate sentence for every
5:40:46
offense the charges here are conspiracy to commit murder which is a class B
5:40:53
felony the legislature has set the sentencing
5:40:59
range not less than one year nor more than 20 years
5:41:09
which means the legislature contemplated in some
5:41:14
instances sentences of no more than a year and in the same instance sentences
5:41:22
of 20 years the legislature has
5:41:27
given the Judiciary
5:41:34
arrange conspiracy to tamper with physical EV evidence is a Class D
5:41:39
Felony maximum 5
5:41:46
years tampering with physical evidence a Class D Felony maximum 5
5:41:53
years hindering prosecution is a class C felony not less than one year nor more
5:42:00
than 10 years
5:42:07
the court relies on what the law states and what the law allows to be
5:42:14
proper considerations setting a
5:42:21
sentence the court relies on the nature and circumstances of the
5:42:27
offense the history and background and character of the
5:42:35
offender after such consideration the court turns to what are called the
5:42:40
traditional purposes of sentencing specific
5:42:46
deterrence General deterrence punishment
5:42:54
incapacitation Rehabilitation vocational or educational
5:43:00
training and medical treatment those factors are not all
5:43:06
given equal wait depending on the nature and circumstances of the
5:43:11
offense and the history background and character of the
5:43:24
offender the court does not take
5:43:31
sides if the court knew possibly any one of you and had a bond with any one of you this court would not have tried that
5:43:43
case it's not the Court's role to side or favor one side or
5:43:55
another sentencing in many ways is a dispassionate
5:44:01
exercise the court has no bond with any individual who spoke to
5:44:10
or any other individual involved in the
5:44:16
case the court cannot develop the passions that one side or the other
5:44:28
has in State versus UI that's 199 Connecticut 121 at 126 a 1986 case
5:44:37
the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the sentencing court may consider information that would be inadmissible
5:44:44
at trial for the purpose of
5:44:50
sancy that same Court held that evidence of crimes for which the defendant was
5:44:56
indicted but neither tried nor convicted may be considered
5:45:02
well the word indicted and the process of indictment
5:45:08
is not generally employed in Connecticut essentially that means where there has
5:45:13
been a finding of probable cause but there has been no trial or no
5:45:20
conviction additionally as a matter of due process the court may consider information that has a minimum indicia
5:45:27
of reliability now that minimum indic of reliability is not limited to
5:45:35
unfavorable information Court can consider favorable favorable information
5:45:40
that has a minimum indic of
5:45:46
reliability the court certainly considers the victim impact
5:45:55
statements every victim has the right to be heard before the court sentences a
5:46:00
defendant that's part of the Connecticut victims Bill of Rights
5:46:08
which is read every day in every Courthouse here in Connecticut the court would
5:46:16
clarify what it perceives
5:46:22
as perhaps a misconception of what the Court's role
5:46:29
is the court does not deliberate with the jury
5:46:37
the court does not deliberate on the evidence at all the court hears the evidence as the
5:46:44
evidence comes into the to the
5:46:51
record so when you hear that the court has a view of the evidence the court has no view of
5:46:58
the evidence what the court has is a
5:47:04
verdict and what could would have been the reasonable and logical
5:47:10
inferences from the evidence that was adduced the court would not know what the jury discussed over those many
5:47:33
hours what the court can find is
5:47:42
this it was clear during the jury charge
5:47:47
jury instructions that the court instructed the jury that it may draw any reasonable and logical inferences from
5:47:55
the facts found to have been
5:48:00
proven based on the verdict the jury could have found the
5:48:07
following reasonable and logical inferences fotus doulos was not
5:48:15
home at Fort Jefferson Crossing the morning of May
5:48:21
24th when his wife was murdered but the defendant said he was
5:48:32
out when the defendant admitted that he was not home
5:48:38
the defendant who had been angry about
5:48:44
dulos's talking to other women did not even ask him where he had
5:48:57
been the defendant who was angry that he had visited his his wife did not ask him
5:49:05
if he had visited her in fact the defendant as the court
5:49:10
remembers the evidence didn't ask him
5:49:17
anything the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant knew where he was and knew
5:49:24
what he was
5:49:31
doing the defendant said she saw Kent mnny and fotus doulos together in the
5:49:37
office at Fort Jefferson Crossing on the morning of May
5:49:43
24th but the defendant did not see fotus doulos and K mnni in the office at Fort
5:49:50
Jefferson Crossing on the morning of May
5:49:57
24 there was a phone call made to dulos's phone which doulos left
5:50:04
intentionally at Fort Jefferson Crossing the defendant answered
5:50:10
it and the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference from all of the
5:50:15
evidence that the defendant answered the phone to make it appear that doulos took
5:50:21
the call himself on the morning of May 24th at
5:50:27
Fort Jefferson Crossing when he was really on his way to or in new
5:50:35
Canan when I a police officer came to Fort Jefferson Crossing soon after the
5:50:40
murder the defendant did not even go to the door even though her daughter who was
5:50:48
not home may have been the subject of that
5:50:55
conversation at the door now it has been clear that the defendant cares deeply for her daughter
5:51:03
the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant did not go to the
5:51:09
door because the defendant knew the reason the officer was there to find out more about The
5:51:15
Disappearance of Jennifer
5:51:22
du these are reasonable and logical inferences from the facts that were
5:51:28
induced of the case during the trial the defendant traveled through a
5:51:34
part of Harford with doulos as he dumps the bloody clothing of his
5:51:40
wife the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that on the same
5:51:48
day the defendant helped him pretend he was home in the morning but in the evening accompanied
5:51:56
him to get rid of the evidence the defendant's DNA profile was
5:52:02
found on one of the bags disposed of in Hartford the jury could draw a reasonable and
5:52:09
logical inference that the defendant helped dispose of the evidence
5:52:17
knowingly the jury could draw a reasonable and logical inference that the defendant helped fotus dulos's
5:52:23
cleanup traces of evidence at 80 Mountain Spring Road because the defendant and doulos
5:52:31
were there together cleaning on the same day that the coma
5:52:37
traveled to new
5:52:44
Canan this is a flurry of irregular activity all on the same
5:52:55
day the jury could draw a reasonable and logical
5:53:00
inference that the activities of that day were so irregular that the defendant
5:53:06
could not possibly forget them in the span of two
5:53:16
weeks even if the jurors individually had doubts about the defendant's
5:53:23
guilt each one of them ultimately concluded that their doubts were not
5:53:33
reasonable this is not a view of the the Court's view of the
5:53:41
evidence these are logical and reasonable inferences that the jury could have
5:53:52
drawn court is going to talk a little about the philosophy of
5:53:57
sentencing
5:54:09
sentencing is not the product of the Court's passions or
5:54:14
prejudices the court doesn't have a bond with anyone involved in the
5:54:20
case it's a dispassionate
5:54:29
exercise the court did not investigate the case the court did not talk to the
5:54:34
victims the court has no conversation with the defendant or the defendant's
5:54:44
family so there are some questions that are age-old does the court the senten in
5:54:52
court adopt the public appr probium the indignation of the
5:55:04
community when does retribution turn into
5:55:13
Revenge what's the role of
5:55:20
empathy should the court exercise sympathy for one side or
5:55:30
another these are age- old questions
5:55:38
the court relies on what the law
5:55:44
says the court can consider the nature and circumstances of the offense the
5:55:51
history background and character of the
5:55:58
offender every exercise is not an either or or exercise
5:56:08
often the good and the bad are
5:56:19
true what is the purpose of the Court taking into consideration the victim impact
5:56:28
statements is that only for the purpose of sympathy
5:56:36
the court uses the victim impact statements to assign in its view the
5:56:41
proper weight to any one of those traditional purposes of
5:56:51
sentencing sentencing is not arbitrary or capricious it's not a matter of how the judge feels that
5:57:03
day Court wants to also address what has become over the
5:57:09
course of perhaps
5:57:14
centuries perhaps not a cliche Michelle Trona says life is in
5:57:20
your hands Michelle tron's life is in her own
5:57:27
hands what Michelle tronis decides to do today tomorrow and the next day is up to
5:57:34
her from what the court has heard she has a
5:57:41
great deal to offer court has no control over what her
5:57:48
decisions will be her life is
5:57:57
hers the following sentences are going to run
5:58:04
concurrently on the count charge in conspiracy to commit murder 20 years execution suspended
5:58:11
after 14 A2 years to serve 5 years probation tampering with physical
5:58:18
evidence 5 years execution suspended after four years 5 years
5:58:24
probation conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence 5 years execution suspended after 4 years 5 years
5:58:34
probation the second count of tampering with physical evidence 5 years execution suspended after four years 5 years
5:58:43
probation hindering prosecution 5 years execution suspended after four years
5:58:48
probation after four years rather 5 years probation total effective sentence
5:58:54
20 years execution suspended after 14 and 1/2 years 5 years
5:59:03
probation you will have an opportunity to challenge every finding that the jury made and
5:59:10
every ruling that the court made Madam clerk you can give the defendant her notice of right to
5:59:20
appeal judge I'm going to um orally state that Mr kones does intend to appeal I'm going to ask the court to set
5:59:27
a reasonable appeal Bond I will state that
5:59:33
um this the uh the appeal bond that the court set was not something that Miss
5:59:39
tronus or her family were able to uh meet I'm asking for something more in
5:59:44
line with what she had been released on bond for for the last five years I would
5:59:49
note that after your honor went on vacation the state asked for additional conditions which included um making her
5:59:58
move to Connecticut and remain within the bounds of Connecticut my position
6:00:04
your honor is the court obviously took that into consideration when it set that
6:00:09
high bond that she was not a resident of Connecticut because that's what the state had then argued I'm asking that if
6:00:16
there if she's going to be released that the court said a $2 million Bond but with a condition that to reside in
6:00:23
Connecticut and not leave without permission and cour is going well Council court is going to decline to set
6:00:29
a an appeal Bond it's not a constitutional right
6:00:36
has the defendant sign the notice of right to appeal stand to journ All
6:01:04
Rise

Court feed -- unedited transcript MT sentencing for Jennifer Dulos case

Thank you greatly for this transcript.

I listened yet again to the Judge Randolph words and read your transcript and still believe much of the verbiage about the 'philosophy of sentencing' from the Judge is to remove the appearance as he himself says to 'take sides' in this case. It almost goes back to his admonishment to the gallery about 'sides' and their bickering as if they were on a playground iirc. Judge Randolph structured his remarks to imo abdicate himself from any responsibility for simply 'doing his job' which to me is as stunning as its quite simply wrong. It also frames his 'job description' in such a way that I believe is absolutely incorrect and gives no credence to the concept of justice or the scales of justice and all the other tasks that are part of his JOB as a JUDGE.

As we know and have seen in other cases, Judges have wide discretion in sentencing and instead of acknowledging this great privilege and honour of his role in the judicial process and our society, Judge Randolph instead chose to redefine his role into something that it isn't (being a robot) and was never designed to be based on making an analogy imo to 'taking sides' in a playground argument. Its ridiculous, insulting, patronising and imo quite simply wrong and its designed imo to misdirect from the core issue from which he is responsible is JUSTICE.

If we were to take Judge Randolph at his word in terms of how he describes his JOB then it would be possible to simply load up the AI programs with all the CT laws, feed the software the trial transcript along with the JURY VERDICT and let the software go to town on sentencing. Frankly in this case I think an AI program would have provided a better and MORE JUST result than the sorry words and decision of Judge Randolph. I found the words of Judge Randolph insulting and condescending to anyone that has a dash of knowledge about civics and the the US judicial process. But beyond this, it provided the case with the INCORRECT SENTENCING RESULT.

FWIW going back to the beginning of his statement I simply disagree with how he chose to frame the entire commentary for the record to describe his role and task as it doesn't properly imo describe his job as a sentencing Judge and his job to properly apply the laws of the State of CT and execute upon the instructions of the JURY and WEIGHING the victim impact statements. Instead he created a circus like environment for the Defence to provide yet another distraction from statements of people that they didn't have the courage to subject to the judicial process WHICH INCLUDES THE RIGHT OF CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE STATE!

Yes, we OF COURSE expect Judges to NOT take sides as that is a given and VERY LOW BAR but we DO expect Judge to deliver JUSTICE based on the laws of the State of CT AND based on the JURY findings and the commentary from the impacted VICTIMS.

IMO Judge Randolph chose instead to imo exercise great discretion, not respect the Jury findings and certainly gave no credence to the impact statements of VICTIMS and instead focus on statements made on behalf of the CONVICTED DEFENDANT.

So, based on HIS OWN definition of his job as NOT TAKING SIDES imo the jokes on him as he very much took a side but simply couldn't be honest about it to the Jury, the victims and the citizens of CT imo.

He so far as I can tell chose to believe that a sociopath/psychpath that has never given a care to anyone else in her sorry and pathetic life or made any contribution to society ever has value to society and also has the capacity to contribute something to the world in the latter years of her life beyond sitting on a patio with a glass of wine, lighting fires for comfort and skiing year round from the comfort of her condo in Vail (which I hope is forfeited to the State of CT as part of their program to have inmates PAY FOR THEIR INCARCERATION and which was described in detail on a prior thread here)!

IMO the comment about not taking sides was delivered to the ignorant and intentionally deaf (who imo will never hear or learn) in the gallery in the Courtroom who have likened the Stamford Courtroom process and the prosecution of MT by the State to the justice system found in Venezuela. IDK, its unfortunate and frankly wrong that the Judge even saw it necessary to stoop to the lowest common denominator of people in the Court room but I guess in CT we have reached the point of operating at the level of the lowest common denominator in our society.

I feel sorry for the impacted victims, the hard working and dedicated State Prosecutors but I feel most sorry for the people of CT as they were all impacted in this case by the way Judge Randolph CHOSE to define his job in sentencing MT.

FWIW if Judge Randolph truly believes his self described JOB DESCRIPTION and it is the way he will continue to do his job in the future, then I simply wish he would retire and do so quickly as the VICTIMS and the people of the STATE OF CT deserve better. ALOT BETTER IMO.

MOO

 

[BJarv]

Thanks for posting this @MollyDDD, I'm with you on being angry and upset about how the sentencing went. Very angry and very upset for the Jury and the Victims. STILL.

It also bothers me greatly that Judge Randolph didn't even care enough about the result to clarify whether MT would be subject to 'good behaviour' release as I believe he has the ability to remove that option IN HIS DISCRETION.

I just keep thinking about what Judge Randolph could have said in terms of delivering a message to the CONVICTED DEFENDANT rather than doing his imo pathetic 'on the one hand and on the other hand' analysis of how the Jury 'might' have been thinking about things. What did he think? Why did he not think its his job to deliver justice? Why no admonishment about the many well documented LIES from MT?

Was Judge Randolph per usual living in fear of appeal and reversal? Why toss the second charge at the trial level and not leave it to the Appellate Judges as frankly I thought it precisely the KIND OF ISSUE that SHOULD be decided by the appellate and supreme court so this issue doesn't muck up some other trial in the future. Further, Judge Randolph knows that 'at best' Schoenhorn and his unnamed side kick are third rate attorneys and the last Schoenhorn trip to the Appellate Court saw him resoundingly defeated and frankly embarrassed by AG Tong in front of the Court. Any YET, we saw Judge Randolph pack up the tent on the dropped charge after it had been present FOR FIVE YEARS an had been accepted by EACH OF THE THREE JUDGES THAT HAD TOUCHED THIS CASE.

I hope the State appeals the MT sentencing and also appeals the dropped charge. They probably won't as Atty Manning almost seemed apologetic about mentioning to Judge Randolph that she was preserving the States right to appeal the dropped charge.

What a circus imo. And NOT in a good way. Not at all.

MOO

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Jun 1, 2024
Raymond Hassett, an attorney at Hassett & George, P.C., confirms MT will likely serve less than 14.5 years in prison.

Well, I do hope she takes advantage of educational opportunities in prison. Maybe English as a Second Language … her I-no-speak-English performance at sentencing was pathetic.

 

[Seattle1]

Thank you greatly for this transcript.

I listened yet again to the Judge Randolph words and read your transcript and still believe much of the verbiage about the 'philosophy of sentencing' from the Judge is to remove the appearance as he himself says to 'take sides' in this case. It almost goes back to his admonishment to the gallery about 'sides' and their bickering as if they were on a playground iirc. Judge Randolph structured his remarks to imo abdicate himself from any responsibility for simply 'doing his job' which to me is as stunning as its quite simply wrong. It also frames his 'job description' in such a way that I believe is absolutely incorrect and gives no credence to the concept of justice or the scales of justice and all the other tasks that are part of his JOB as a JUDGE.

As we know and have seen in other cases, Judges have wide discretion in sentencing and instead of acknowledging this great privilege and honour of his role in the judicial process and our society, Judge Randolph instead chose to redefine his role into something that it isn't (being a robot) and was never designed to be based on making an analogy imo to 'taking sides' in a playground argument. Its ridiculous, insulting, patronising and imo quite simply wrong and its designed imo to misdirect from the core issue from which he is responsible is JUSTICE.

If we were to take Judge Randolph at his word in terms of how he describes his JOB then it would be possible to simply load up the AI programs with all the CT laws, feed the software the trial transcript along with the JURY VERDICT and let the software go to town on sentencing. Frankly in this case I think an AI program would have provided a better and MORE JUST result than the sorry words and decision of Judge Randolph. I found the words of Judge Randolph insulting and condescending to anyone that has a dash of knowledge about civics and the the US judicial process. But beyond this, it provided the case with the INCORRECT SENTENCING RESULT.

FWIW going back to the beginning of his statement I simply disagree with how he chose to frame the entire commentary for the record to describe his role and task as it doesn't properly imo describe his job as a sentencing Judge and his job to properly apply the laws of the State of CT and execute upon the instructions of the JURY and WEIGHING the victim impact statements. Instead he created a circus like environment for the Defence to provide yet another distraction from statements of people that they didn't have the courage to subject to the judicial process WHICH INCLUDES THE RIGHT OF CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE STATE!

Yes, we OF COURSE expect Judges to NOT take sides as that is a given and VERY LOW BAR but we DO expect Judge to deliver JUSTICE based on the laws of the State of CT AND based on the JURY findings and the commentary from the impacted VICTIMS.

IMO Judge Randolph chose instead to imo exercise great discretion, not respect the Jury findings and certainly gave no credence to the impact statements of VICTIMS and instead focus on statements made on behalf of the CONVICTED DEFENDANT.

So, based on HIS OWN definition of his job as NOT TAKING SIDES imo the jokes on him as he very much took a side but simply couldn't be honest about it to the Jury, the victims and the citizens of CT imo.

He so far as I can tell chose to believe that a sociopath/psychpath that has never given a care to anyone else in her sorry and pathetic life or made any contribution to society ever has value to society and also has the capacity to contribute something to the world in the latter years of her life beyond sitting on a patio with a glass of wine, lighting fires for comfort and skiing year round from the comfort of her condo in Vail (which I hope is forfeited to the State of CT as part of their program to have inmates PAY FOR THEIR INCARCERATION and which was described in detail on a prior thread here)!

IMO the comment about not taking sides was delivered to the ignorant and intentionally deaf (who imo will never hear or learn) in the gallery in the Courtroom who have likened the Stamford Courtroom process and the prosecution of MT by the State to the justice system found in Venezuela. IDK, its unfortunate and frankly wrong that the Judge even saw it necessary to stoop to the lowest common denominator of people in the Court room but I guess in CT we have reached the point of operating at the level of the lowest common denominator in our society.

I feel sorry for the impacted victims, the hard working and dedicated State Prosecutors but I feel most sorry for the people of CT as they were all impacted in this case by the way Judge Randolph CHOSE to define his job in sentencing MT.

FWIW if Judge Randolph truly believes his self described JOB DESCRIPTION and it is the way he will continue to do his job in the future, then I simply wish he would retire and do so quickly as the VICTIMS and the people of the STATE OF CT deserve better. ALOT BETTER IMO.

MOO

Personally, the comments I had the most difficulty with were those where Judge Randolph says the verdict was by the jurors and how he was not part of their decision, he did not deliberate with them, etc.

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive here because of the months of MT family rhetoric about MT being innocent, and the jury getting it wrong.

In other words, at sentencing, I think this CT legislated neutrality by the Court was taken too far, and acknowledgment of the jury verdict (i.e., MT's guilt of what she was accused) was missing. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Personally, the comments I had the most difficulty with were those where Judge Randolph says the verdict was by the jurors and how he was not part of their decision, he did not deliberate with them, etc.

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive here because of the months of MT family rhetoric about MT being innocent, and the jury getting it wrong.

In other words, at sentencing, I think this CT legislated neutrality by the Court was taken too far, and acknowledgment of the jury verdict (i.e., MT's guilt of what she was accused) was missing. MOO

Quoting my own post to also add that allowing JLS to go on and on about terms for the appeal bond before finally interjecting "Court is going to decline to set an appeal bond--it's not a Constitutional right," came off to me as if a consolation prize! Here, take this bone, Court dismissed! MOO

I'm going to ask the court to set
5:59:27
a reasonable appeal Bond I will state that
5:59:33
um this the uh the appeal bond that the court set was not something that Miss
5:59:39
tronus or her family were able to uh meet I'm asking for something more in
5:59:44
line with what she had been released on bond for for the last five years I would
5:59:49
note that after your honor went on vacation the state asked for additional conditions which included um making her
5:59:58
move to Connecticut and remain within the bounds of Connecticut my position
6:00:04
your honor is the court obviously took that into consideration when it set that
6:00:09
high bond that she was not a resident of Connecticut because that's what the state had then argued I'm asking that if
6:00:16
there if she's going to be released that the court said a $2 million Bond but with a condition that to reside in
6:00:23
Connecticut and not leave without permission and cour is going well Council court is going to decline to set
6:00:29
a an appeal Bond it's not a constitutional right

^^rsbm

 

[BJarv]

Quoting my own post to also add that allowing JLS to go on and on about terms for the appeal bond before finally interjecting "Court is going to decline to set an appeal bond--it's not a Constitutional right," came off to me as if a consolation prize! Here, take this bone, Court dismissed! MOO


^^rsbm

Totally agree @Seattle1 .

Little about what we saw at that sentencing hearing made sense to me. I always say that these CT related issues WILL NOT bring me down but when they inevitably happen they simply sink me. I feel awful for the States Attys and Victims and Jury who simply weren't heard imo.

I do wonder if we will see any further work on the sentencing issue, contempt charge sentencing once case is decided and appeal on the dropped charge by the State?

My guess is nothing further will be done as the State received a resounding defeat at sentencing but perhaps GF could make a request?

I also wonder about the States ability to pursue mistrial based on the dropped charge that had previously stood and been recognized by the Court for 5 years? Simply seems wrong to lose a charge at sentencing that the Jury deliberated about and chose to convict upon? It is all so odd as Judge Randolph KNEW that the Defendant was going to appeal. So, why not put the decision on the dropped charge in the hands of the Judges where it belongs, namely the Appellate and Supreme Court Judges. Simply do not get why Judge Randolph made this decision.

MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Totally agree @Seattle1 .

Little about what we saw at that sentencing hearing made sense to me. I always say that these CT related issues WILL NOT bring me down but when they inevitably happen they simply sink me. I feel awful for the States Attys and Victims and Jury who simply weren't heard imo.

I do wonder if we will see any further work on the sentencing issue, contempt charge sentencing once case is decided and appeal on the dropped charge by the State?

My guess is nothing further will be done as the State received a resounding defeat at sentencing but perhaps GF could make a request?

I also wonder about the States ability to pursue mistrial based on the dropped charge that had previously stood and been recognized by the Court for 5 years? Simply seems wrong to lose a charge at sentencing that the Jury deliberated about and chose to convict upon? It is all so odd as Judge Randolph KNEW that the Defendant was going to appeal. So, why not put the decision on the dropped charge in the hands of the Judges where it belongs, namely the Appellate and Supreme Court Judges. Simply do not get why Judge Randolph made this decision.

MOO

Outside of CT, I can't imagine another Judge ignoring his final opportunity to cite MT's (alleged) manipulative actions inside Randolph's very own courtroom where she intentionally displayed the Herman report, because she could!

I understand the criminal contempt charge is being heard by another Judge, but IMO, the silence here just added volume to MT's scream of no remorse, rules don't apply to me, and disrespect for the U.S. Justice system.

And I will just die if we next hear the Troconis machine amend their rhetoric to include 'we think Judge Randolph believes Michelle that she's innocent of her charges...we think he believes she's a woman of great character.' JMO

 

[citygirl]

Watch Gone Mom: The Disappearance of Jennifer Dulos | Lifetime

www.mylifetime.com

Embarrassed to say I watched this.

 

[Cool Cats]

Embarrassed to say I watched this.

I am new to the case and it really mislead me. Both disappearance and arrest are made out to be close together when instead (I think) there were what, 5 years between disappearance and arrest?

I would have mentioned this if I had known.