Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 40,341
- Reaction score
- 420,743
KM waived his right to a speedy trial. So guess there's that...
GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #70
- Thread starter doodles1211
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #187
- Latest: steeltowngirl
- Status
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 40,341
- Reaction score
- 420,743
Jmoose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 7,021
- Reaction score
- 53,616
It’s my firm opinion that MT was attempting to distract the detective(s) by bringing up her sexuality. Not one time, but two times, when it likely didn’t even happen. I think it’s always been her MO, whenever she has needed to get out of some sort of fix. And it has probably worked to some degree or another in the past. She was trying to get Det. Kimball off of the subject of the murdered Jennifer Dulos, and trying to get him to start thinking of her in a sexual way-making it more likely that she could slide out of trouble. He wasn’t that easy, as she discovered.
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 40,341
- Reaction score
- 420,743
Exactly.
kaen
Trying to be a good human.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 6,690
- Reaction score
- 48,569
You are right. Every single person they touched was affected by the crap they spewed and ways they took advantage of them. And, they always made it seem like they were doing you a favor. The rug show the night before JFD disappearred is a great example. FD forgot he invited people. MT was drumming up business. FD conveniently had to do an errand for more steaks and possibly meet up with someone. PG had to move the leaking truck. Lies and poison to cover their tracks. Didn't give a darn about pulling anyone in-- these people were friends with JFD also. Even took one of the holiest Christian holidays for showmanship and creating discomfort for JFD, these folks, the kids. Hideous humans. Ughh.
I forgot about the water ski pond and those folks (who unfortunately still support MT or so it seems).
Also, the guys with hunting camp who found the grave dug..... on and on and on.
You can lead a HORSE to water but you CANNOT make them drink.
Atty Bowman tried hard. Atty Colangelo tried to make it work.
MT and Mama Troconis had other ideas.
MOO
I keep laughing about the MT story of trying to sell a rug to Mr and Mrs Whatever their names (wife learned spanish in 12 days iirc for a vacation or business trip) were but she apparently didn't have the 'required silver colour we needed' and I can only imagine how ticked off MT must have been as the FD cash was gone and my guess is that they didn't have money for bills or even gas etc. by that time. AND FD wanted her to feed a group of people for dinner AND he left her with the guests while he took off to purchase 'meat'! What a total Prince of a guy! Little to nothing made sense about the "Murders Eve Dinner" and the chosen guests which is why it was a tactical OWN GOAL by the Defence to introduce it at MT trial. That segment of MT defence had me wondering if Schoenhorn dreamed it up while sitting in his Tesla during the pretrial period and 'blunt blowin'? Honestly could any presentation on behalf of MT have made less sense that those witnesses? Sorry, I guess Petu did and I have to admit to being curious to NOT see Petu along with the Church Ladies at the MT Bible Revival Presentation at Sentencing! Wonder where Petu is? Did ICE perhaps round her up and deport her? Curious.
I think I would PAY MONEY to find out if MT ever sold any rugs or was the rug business simply a front for the 'import/export' business of her sister/brother in law or possibly some grift associated with FD and his grifter friend Andreas? I do wonder what CSP found out about Andreas or even the FD friend from Brown days from RI who was also going through a 'contentious divorce' . I mean what are the chances of FD knowing so many men involved in 'contentious divorces' - KM, Brown Friend, Atty Bill Murray etc.
In looking at all the corrupt attorneys that FD managed to dig up from the dregs of the CT Bar (Attys: KM, Bill Murray, Michael Rose, Pytranker, Pattis, Smith etc.) its quite a collection and this is only a partial list.
I do believe that 'like attracts like' and so FD and MT surrounded themselves with likeminded grifters and suckers such as the people that attended the infamous "Murders Eve Dinner" who thought that 'all was well and everyone was happy' despite knowing FD and MT for years.
The word Hideous that you chose is a good word to describe FD and MT. Shameless is another word as is absolutely self absorbed and on and on.
The person that wasn't mentioned in depth at MT trial other than a brief 'honourable mention' by I think Det. Kimball who described Anna Curry as MT 2.0. Anna Curry imo is a fascinating character in this tragedy because she knew about the arrest warrant documents and the allegations and also knew all about MT and had known FD for years AND STILL gave FD alot of money and moved into 4JX shortly after MT and her car full of black Hefty bags packed up and left 4JX. FD had no cash and used Anna Curry to try and stay out of jail pending trial but his one last grift of lying to the Bond Company failed and so he instead of facing all that he created he instead chose to commit suicide. I think Anna Curry falls into the 'sucker' category as she seems simply used by FD for money and sex and companionship as his world imploded following the decision to murder JFD.
KM is another imo absolutely corrupt and morally bankrupt person in the FD and MT orbit that had been advising FD for years and show him how to manipulate the CT Courts via lying and delaying as he knew the CT Courts would do nothing to stop such behaviour. KM is also interesting in that his personal contact list via his so called 'law practice' is simply a list of miscreants who imo are even worse than FD, MT and KM himself.
I do hope we see a KM trial. Can't say I'm hugely optimistic it will happen after the Judge Randolph ruling on KM. But, maybe the State will be galvanized by the MT weak sentence to go to town and nail KM to the proverbial cross for his role in the murder of JFD? Tick tock State's Attorneys! What is taking SO LONG?
MOO
Last edited:
Now that the dust has settled, I've come around to your way of thinking. I was willing to accept it... like at least it's something! Never considered what the jurors may think after coming in with guilty on all counts.
And the church ladies! OMG, how was this allowed?
On the heels of the five children pleading for justice.
We've heard about how the children were faring fairly well with love and support.
Clearly they are not! They told the Judge so.
All of it wrong on so many levels!
And, Petu was there in the morning , giving the eye to Jennifer's classy, well spoken friends.
Was hoping she would speak. I was no more good when a poster referred to her as Petu-tu.
Never saw her on the courthouse steps afterward.
It was wise to exclude her.
Did she get her feelings hurt?
MOO
FWIW, I've had to stop thinking about the sentencing and what Judge Randolph permitted to happen at sentencing in terms of putting Victims Rights on the same plane at Convicted Defendants Rights as it is simply enraging on behalf of victims and the jury imo. Truly an 'Only in CT' moment which imo was absolutely disgraceful to have been allowed to happen the way it did.
For those true gluttons for punishment here is the 2002 Practice Book and the "Code of Judicial Conduct':
I was particularly taken with CANON 3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct and perhaps it was this section of the document that Judge Randolph butchered in his comments on the record [BBM]:
Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. Judicial duties include all the duties of that office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:
(a) Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge should maintain order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of the judge's staff court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.
COMMENTARY: The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.
Interesting also that Judge's in CT have an obligation to report attorney infractions which in this sorry case imo there were MANY including:
1. Atty Schoenhorn and Atty Felson (and the predecesor attorneys for FD and MT) CHOOSING to withhold VITAL case evidence from the Court and CSP in an active MURDER INVESTIGATION. Crime scene evidence FROM A MURDER made its way in a box held by three CT attorneys for 4 years before ending up with CSP, by which time the evidence which contained the HAIR OF MT on a hoodie, was tainted and unusable at trail. No consequences for any of the involved attorneys and NO coverage of this travesty by MSM (no surprise but still quite shocking given what all was in the box).
Attorneys involved that participated in the game of 'passing the box of evidence in a Murder Trial': Norm Pattis, Andrew Bowman, Jon Schoenhorn and Audrey Felson and the now CT Judge to whom Jon Schoenhorn 'passed' the box who then handed it over to CSP. Only in CT can an individual attorney, Atty Tara Knight, be involved with withheld evidence then be elevated to a Judgeship! Perfect end to an "ONLY IN CT" story!
Quote from Hartford Courant article via yahoo due to paywall:
Prosecution trying to disqualify Michelle Troconis’ lawyer as her trial approaches in Jennifer Farber Dulos slaying case
State prosecutors want to disqualify Michelle Troconis’ lawyer from defending her because they may call him as a witness to testify about how he obtained a mysterious box of evidence containing a sweatshirt police believe is similar to one connected to the killing of Jennifer Farber Dulos. The...
"According to the motion to disqualify Schoenhorn by the State’s Attorney’s office in Stamford, state police investigators first learned of the box and sweatshirt after being called two years after the slaying to the law offices of attorney - and now Superior Court Judge Tara Knight - in New Haven".
Knight handed the detectives a white banker’s box and said she had received it a day earlier.
“Knight, citing attorney client privilege, refused to reveal who gave her the box or how it came into her possession,” the prosecution motion said. “Knight did, however, state the following in sum and substance: She had not looked inside the box; however, she had been assured by her ‘client’ that the contents of the box had a direct connection to the investigation.”
Inside the box, the detectives found, in addition to the sweatshirt and tools, a letter from Schoenhorn to Knight. The letter referred to the criminal charges against Troconis and said only, “I am enclosing a blue sweatshirt that I received from another attorney.”
According to the prosecution memo, Schoenhorn “intimated” that he came into possession of the box a year earlier and disclosed it to police after realizing it could be significant in view of other evidence. He “suggested” the sweatshirt had been in in various places and handled by “several” persons before it arrived in his office.
Detectives also interviewed attorney Andrew Bowman, who represented Troconis before Schoenhorn. Bowman said the box was among the materials he gave Schoenhorn. Bowman said Troconis did not give him the box, but he could not remember who did, according to the prosecution motion.
The prosecution is asking a judge to disqualify Schoenhorn because “he is likely to be a necessary witness” in Troconis’ trial and that creates a conflict of interest between his responsibility as a witness and as an advocate for his client.
Judge Randolph it appears DID NOT DO this and neither did Judge Blawie OR Judge White. So, we see a "STRIKE OUT" whereby all 3 senior Judges in Criminal Court in Stamford FAILED to report this activity to the appropriate CT Bar Authorities. I'm sure the State's Attorneys have a similar standard of reporting and this seems to have been a similar "Strike out" to the Judges. Wonderful....Welcome to CT! Murder trial evidence is held in boxes in the offices of 3 attorneys and NOPE THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
2. Judge Randolph and Judge Blawie and the sorry case of the handling and treatment of the discredited Herman Report. Honourable mention here to Judge Heller whose Court had responsibility to safeguard the sealed discredited Herman Report and who was a GHOST in the MT Trial proceedings and who no differently than she acted imo in the Dulos v Dulos case DID ZERO TO PROTECT THE DECEASED VICTIM JFD.
NOT ONE of these Judge's did anything to maintain the confidentiality of the sealed discredited Herman Report. NOT ONE. The report had very clear and easy to understand guidelines as outlined by Judge Heller Order in Family Court and quite simply these guidelines with not followed and were routinely disregarded in Criminal Court. None of the Judge's in Criminal Court respected the prior orders of Judge Heller and NOT ONE of them respected the confidentiality of the sealed report on behalf of the murdered victim in this case JFD.
These Judge's imo had the DUTY and OBLIGATION to protect the sealed report from the irresponsible and ethically challenged Defence attorneys: Pattis, Smith, Schoenhorn and Felson. Only Atty Bowman attempted to stop MT from speaking of the discredited report yet she did so in the LE interviews and on social media for 5 years.
(b) Administrative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should diligently discharge his or her administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court officials.
(2) A judge should require the judge's staff and court officials subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge.
(3) A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a judge or lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware. A judge is not required to disclose information gained by the judge while serving as a member of a committee that renders assistance to ill or impaired judges or lawyers or while serving as a member of a bar association professional ethics committee.
COMMENTARY: Disciplinary measures may include reporting a lawyer's misconduct to an appropriate disciplinary body. The judge who receives this information still has discretion to report it to the appropriate authority, depending on the seriousness of the conduct and the circumstances involved.
----------------------------------------------------
Back to the sorry Sentencing Hearing after a delay to identify a FEW administrative 'irregularities' in the MT case treatment in Stamford COURT courtesy of Judges Blawie, White and Randolph.
1. Judge Randolph seeming denial of judicial discretion ON THE RECORD and then his turning around and exercising GREAT DISCRETION IMO. WHAT? I think Judge Randolph could give Schoenhorn a run for his money in a game of THREE CARD MONTE? SIMPLY A FARCE and frankly quite wrong to say nothing of being incorrect as it relates to the job of a JUDGE.
2. Judge Randolph putting VICTIMS RIGHT and CONVICTED DEFENDANTS RIGHTS on the same level in the eyes of the Court. SINCE WHEN and WHY?
MT was convicted in a resounding manner by a JURY OF HER PEERS, which Judge Randolph IN HIS DISCRETION CHOSE TO DISREGARD. We are to believe that in the world of Judge Randolph judicial discretion doesn't exist and he 'doesn't pick sides'. Won't even go there on the frankly idiocy of discussion of 'picking sides' as this is something that in the US we poor citizens take as a minimum standard for our Judges and given that this sorry Judge has been on the bench I believe since 2006 HE WELL KNOWS THIS.
3. Judge Randolph CHOSE to disregard VICTIMS SENTENCING WISHES. Why not simply own it instead of relying on the imo idiotic statement about 'not picking sides'? Why not speak to the VICTIMS and explain how the discretion wielded in this case by the Judge meets some criteria for delivering Justice? Judge imo did not address VICTIMS AT ALL. I realise CL is playing a long game with the State of CT and contained herself in the public statements but WHY NOT CALL THIS SENTENCE FOR WHAT IT IS AND THIS JUDGE FOR WHO HE CHOSE TO BE WITH THIS SENTENCE? Yes, it's CT I know so I will sit down as the entire situation sadly speaks for itself.
4. Judge Randolph CHOSE to speak about "not picking sides" rather than speak to the issue of the CORE FUNCTION OF HIS JOB WHICH IMO IS TO DELIVER JUSTICE. This isn't an 'either or' type of task and the Code seems clear on this imo. Judges are to be 'impartial' WHILE DOING THEIR JOBS and its the DOING THEIR JOBS part of the job description that Judge Randolph chose to NOT DISCUSS. IMO we saw one of the many games of 'three card monte' in this tragic case where Judge Randolph NEVER MENTIONS JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS which is the core function of a Judge. Instead we were treated to a robotic and frankly idiotic long and winding statement about something else entirely.
It's been a long time since I've seen not just one Judge on a case but 3 Judges in total on a case be more concerned about appeal risk rather that simply focusing on their jobs and then letting the Appellate and Supreme Courts of CT DO THEIR JOBS. I strongly believe that Judge Randolph should not have removed a charge that the Jury convicted MT on AFTER IT HAD STOOD IN PLACE FOR 5 Years at the lower court level and it should have been decided by a higher court and gone to the Supreme Court if necessary. Whether this was Judicial vanity or not I have not a clue but if there was any doubt as to whether this charge should have been removed or not then it is the job of the higher Courts to make this determination and IMO NOT the lower court Judge. Again, WHY?
I do hope if we ever hear from the jurors (respect their discretion and desire for privacy in this case as they behaved imo in an impeccable manner and with great respect for the Victim), that perhaps they will express their views on the sentencing as I have to admit to being curious. But, imo the voice of the Jury was clear as they convicted on ALL COUNTS after a solid period of deliberation. Its unfortunately imo that Judge Randolph chose to disregard their hard, honest and diligent efforts under great scrutiny and public interest.
MOO
Typical 'defence atty' response to Judge Randolph sentencing but interesting all the same imo:
Last edited:
After all the Schoenhorn 'horning' on the Courthouse steps about PG along with the Troconis family and MT vilifying PG now for 5 years, I went back to the PG testimony at the MT trial. The testimony was carefully planned and PG held up well to the feeble 'testimony cross' nonsense seen from Schoenhorn all trial imo.
Its odd to follow a case for 5 years and see it effectively come full circle back to almost the same spot it started with Pattis and FD trying to discredit PG 5 years ago. Pattis and FD didn't have a case then and Schoenhorn had the clear opportunity to present evidence to discredit PG at the MT trial BUT HE DIDN"T DO it. He instead blamed the State (ie. taking the lazy way out which is what he had spent the prior 4 years doing on any number of pretrial evidence issues imo) for the immunity agreement. Thing is that Schoenhorn on behalf of his client presented NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE about PG at trial as was their right to do. Didn't happen. So, he just threw shade and smoke at PG via the immunity agreement.
The thing is with PG and the immunity agreement is that PG was cooperative for a long period of time and actively working with LE without the agreement. To me, rightly or wrongly, this said alot about PG as well as the working relationship his Atty Urso had with the State's Attorney.
I give the jury credit for seeing the Schoenhorn shameful behaviour on 'testimony cross' for the ridiculous sham that it was when PG was on cross iirc for over a day. Lazy attorneys imo always manage to get hung by their laziness and I think that if PG had been to blame as Schoenhorn seemed to poorly and ineffectively intimate at trial that Schoenhorn had the obligation to show up prepared and WITH RECEIPTS rather than resorting to defamation and slander on the Courtroom steps, in the Press and on social media via the Troconis family and the 1st amendment abusing 'artist'. Thing is there were no receipts presented EVER by the Defence and MT and Schoenhorns performance on cross was just another one of his lazy and feeble attempts to throw shade with no weight of evidence behind it. Par for the course with this sorry Defence team imo.
This is the clip from L&C where PG said MT wanted JFD dead. I wished that Judge Randolph had reflected on this tidbit in his sentencing DISCRETION analysis and where MT exhibited NO REMORSE as was clearly stated by a couple of the Farber Dulos children in their comments:
Its odd to follow a case for 5 years and see it effectively come full circle back to almost the same spot it started with Pattis and FD trying to discredit PG 5 years ago. Pattis and FD didn't have a case then and Schoenhorn had the clear opportunity to present evidence to discredit PG at the MT trial BUT HE DIDN"T DO it. He instead blamed the State (ie. taking the lazy way out which is what he had spent the prior 4 years doing on any number of pretrial evidence issues imo) for the immunity agreement. Thing is that Schoenhorn on behalf of his client presented NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE about PG at trial as was their right to do. Didn't happen. So, he just threw shade and smoke at PG via the immunity agreement.
The thing is with PG and the immunity agreement is that PG was cooperative for a long period of time and actively working with LE without the agreement. To me, rightly or wrongly, this said alot about PG as well as the working relationship his Atty Urso had with the State's Attorney.
I give the jury credit for seeing the Schoenhorn shameful behaviour on 'testimony cross' for the ridiculous sham that it was when PG was on cross iirc for over a day. Lazy attorneys imo always manage to get hung by their laziness and I think that if PG had been to blame as Schoenhorn seemed to poorly and ineffectively intimate at trial that Schoenhorn had the obligation to show up prepared and WITH RECEIPTS rather than resorting to defamation and slander on the Courtroom steps, in the Press and on social media via the Troconis family and the 1st amendment abusing 'artist'. Thing is there were no receipts presented EVER by the Defence and MT and Schoenhorns performance on cross was just another one of his lazy and feeble attempts to throw shade with no weight of evidence behind it. Par for the course with this sorry Defence team imo.
This is the clip from L&C where PG said MT wanted JFD dead. I wished that Judge Randolph had reflected on this tidbit in his sentencing DISCRETION analysis and where MT exhibited NO REMORSE as was clearly stated by a couple of the Farber Dulos children in their comments:
MollyDDD
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2018
- Messages
- 2,825
- Reaction score
- 24,473
OMG, did she actually think she was Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct?
::::::::::wild laughter::::::::
MollyDDD
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2018
- Messages
- 2,825
- Reaction score
- 24,473
Probably wore a short dress with no panties too.
MollyDDD
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2018
- Messages
- 2,825
- Reaction score
- 24,473
Thanks for showing that. I missed that part of the trial.
MollyDDD
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2018
- Messages
- 2,825
- Reaction score
- 24,473
Brilliant, as usual. When I think about how blown away we all are with his sentencing, I can’t help but wonder how Mrs. Farber and her grandchildren are feeling.FWIW, I've had to stop thinking about the sentencing and what Judge Randolph permitted to happen at sentencing in terms of putting Victims Rights on the same plane at Convicted Defendants Rights as it is simply enraging on behalf of victims and the jury imo. Truly an 'Only in CT' moment which imo was absolutely disgraceful to have been allowed to happen the way it did.
For those true gluttons for punishment here is the 2002 Practice Book and the "Code of Judicial Conduct':
I was particularly taken with CANON 3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct and perhaps it was this section of the document that Judge Randolph butchered in his comments on the record [BBM]:
Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. Judicial duties include all the duties of that office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:
(a) Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge should maintain order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of the judge's staff court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.
COMMENTARY: The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.
Interesting also that Judge's in CT have an obligation to report attorney infractions which in this sorry case imo there were MANY including:
1. Atty Schoenhorn and Atty Felson (and the predecesor attorneys for FD and MT) CHOOSING to withhold VITAL case evidence from the Court and CSP in an active MURDER INVESTIGATION. Crime scene evidence FROM A MURDER made its way in a box held by three CT attorneys for 4 years before ending up with CSP, by which time the evidence which contained the HAIR OF MT on a hoodie, was tainted and unusable at trail. No consequences for any of the involved attorneys and NO coverage of this travesty by MSM (no surprise but still quite shocking given what all was in the box).
Attorneys involved that participated in the game of 'passing the box of evidence in a Murder Trial': Norm Pattis, Andrew Bowman, Jon Schoenhorn and Audrey Felson and the now CT Judge to whom Jon Schoenhorn 'passed' the box who then handed it over to CSP. Only in CT can an individual attorney, Atty Tara Knight, be involved with withheld evidence then be elevated to a Judgeship! Perfect end to an "ONLY IN CT" story!
Quote from Hartford Courant article via yahoo due to paywall:
Prosecution trying to disqualify Michelle Troconis’ lawyer as her trial approaches in Jennifer Farber Dulos slaying case
State prosecutors want to disqualify Michelle Troconis’ lawyer from defending her because they may call him as a witness to testify about how he obtained a mysterious box of evidence containing a sweatshirt police believe is similar to one connected to the killing of Jennifer Farber Dulos. The...www.yahoo.com
"According to the motion to disqualify Schoenhorn by the State’s Attorney’s office in Stamford, state police investigators first learned of the box and sweatshirt after being called two years after the slaying to the law offices of attorney - and now Superior Court Judge Tara Knight - in New Haven".
Knight handed the detectives a white banker’s box and said she had received it a day earlier.
“Knight, citing attorney client privilege, refused to reveal who gave her the box or how it came into her possession,” the prosecution motion said. “Knight did, however, state the following in sum and substance: She had not looked inside the box; however, she had been assured by her ‘client’ that the contents of the box had a direct connection to the investigation.”
Inside the box, the detectives found, in addition to the sweatshirt and tools, a letter from Schoenhorn to Knight. The letter referred to the criminal charges against Troconis and said only, “I am enclosing a blue sweatshirt that I received from another attorney.”
According to the prosecution memo, Schoenhorn “intimated” that he came into possession of the box a year earlier and disclosed it to police after realizing it could be significant in view of other evidence. He “suggested” the sweatshirt had been in in various places and handled by “several” persons before it arrived in his office.
Detectives also interviewed attorney Andrew Bowman, who represented Troconis before Schoenhorn. Bowman said the box was among the materials he gave Schoenhorn. Bowman said Troconis did not give him the box, but he could not remember who did, according to the prosecution motion.
The prosecution is asking a judge to disqualify Schoenhorn because “he is likely to be a necessary witness” in Troconis’ trial and that creates a conflict of interest between his responsibility as a witness and as an advocate for his client.
Judge Randolph it appears DID NOT DO this and neither did Judge Blawie OR Judge White. So, we see a "STRIKE OUT" whereby all 3 senior Judges in Criminal Court in Stamford FAILED to report this activity to the appropriate CT Bar Authorities. I'm sure the State's Attorneys have a similar standard of reporting and this seems to have been a similar "Strike out" to the Judges. Wonderful....Welcome to CT! Murder trial evidence is held in boxes in the offices of 3 attorneys and NOPE THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
2. Judge Randolph and Judge Blawie and the sorry case of the handling and treatment of the discredited Herman Report. Honourable mention here to Judge Heller whose Court had responsibility to safeguard the sealed discredited Herman Report and who was a GHOST in the MT Trial proceedings and who no differently than she acted imo in the Dulos v Dulos case DID ZERO TO PROTECT THE DECEASED VICTIM JFD.
NOT ONE of these Judge's did anything to maintain the confidentiality of the sealed discredited Herman Report. NOT ONE. The report had very clear and easy to understand guidelines as outlined by Judge Heller Order in Family Court and quite simply these guidelines with not followed and were routinely disregarded in Criminal Court. None of the Judge's in Criminal Court respected the prior orders of Judge Heller and NOT ONE of them respected the confidentiality of the sealed report on behalf of the murdered victim in this case JFD.
These Judge's imo had the DUTY and OBLIGATION to protect the sealed report from the irresponsible and ethically challenged Defence attorneys: Pattis, Smith, Schoenhorn and Felson. Only Atty Bowman attempted to stop MT from speaking of the discredited report yet she did so in the LE interviews and on social media for 5 years.
(b) Administrative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should diligently discharge his or her administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court officials.
(2) A judge should require the judge's staff and court officials subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge.
(3) A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a judge or lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware. A judge is not required to disclose information gained by the judge while serving as a member of a committee that renders assistance to ill or impaired judges or lawyers or while serving as a member of a bar association professional ethics committee.
COMMENTARY: Disciplinary measures may include reporting a lawyer's misconduct to an appropriate disciplinary body. The judge who receives this information still has discretion to report it to the appropriate authority, depending on the seriousness of the conduct and the circumstances involved.
----------------------------------------------------
Back to the sorry Sentencing Hearing after a delay to identify a FEW administrative 'irregularities' in the MT case treatment in Stamford COURT courtesy of Judges Blawie, White and Randolph.
1. Judge Randolph seeming denial of judicial discretion ON THE RECORD and then his turning around and exercising GREAT DISCRETION IMO. WHAT? I think Judge Randolph could give Schoenhorn a run for his money in a game of THREE CARD MONTE? SIMPLY A FARCE and frankly quite wrong to say nothing of being incorrect as it relates to the job of a JUDGE.
2. Judge Randolph putting VICTIMS RIGHT and CONVICTED DEFENDANTS RIGHTS on the same level in the eyes of the Court. SINCE WHEN and WHY?
MT was convicted in a resounding manner by a JURY OF HER PEERS, which Judge Randolph IN HIS DISCRETION CHOSE TO DISREGARD. We are to believe that in the world of Judge Randolph judicial discretion doesn't exist and he 'doesn't pick sides'. Won't even go there on the frankly idiocy of discussion of 'picking sides' as this is something that in the US we poor citizens take as a minimum standard for our Judges and given that this sorry Judge has been on the bench I believe since 2006 HE WELL KNOWS THIS.
3. Judge Randolph CHOSE to disregard VICTIMS SENTENCING WISHES. Why not simply own it instead of relying on the imo idiotic statement about 'not picking sides'? Why not speak to the VICTIMS and explain how the discretion wielded in this case by the Judge meets some criteria for delivering Justice? Judge imo did not address VICTIMS AT ALL. I realise CL is playing a long game with the State of CT and contained herself in the public statements but WHY NOT CALL THIS SENTENCE FOR WHAT IT IS AND THIS JUDGE FOR WHO HE CHOSE TO BE WITH THIS SENTENCE? Yes, it's CT I know so I will sit down as the entire situation sadly speaks for itself.
4. Judge Randolph CHOSE to speak about "not picking sides" rather than speak to the issue of the CORE FUNCTION OF HIS JOB WHICH IMO IS TO DELIVER JUSTICE. This isn't an 'either or' type of task and the Code seems clear on this imo. Judges are to be 'impartial' WHILE DOING THEIR JOBS and its the DOING THEIR JOBS part of the job description that Judge Randolph chose to NOT DISCUSS. IMO we saw one of the many games of 'three card monte' in this tragic case where Judge Randolph NEVER MENTIONS JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS which is the core function of a Judge. Instead we were treated to a robotic and frankly idiotic long and winding statement about something else entirely.
It's been a long time since I've seen not just one Judge on a case but 3 Judges in total on a case be more concerned about appeal risk rather that simply focusing on their jobs and then letting the Appellate and Supreme Courts of CT DO THEIR JOBS. I strongly believe that Judge Randolph should not have removed a charge that the Jury convicted MT on AFTER IT HAD STOOD IN PLACE FOR 5 Years at the lower court level and it should have been decided by a higher court and gone to the Supreme Court if necessary. Whether this was Judicial vanity or not I have not a clue but if there was any doubt as to whether this charge should have been removed or not then it is the job of the higher Courts to make this determination and IMO NOT the lower court Judge. Again, WHY?
I do hope if we ever hear from the jurors (respect their discretion and desire for privacy in this case as they behaved imo in an impeccable manner and with great respect for the Victim), that perhaps they will express their views on the sentencing as I have to admit to being curious. But, imo the voice of the Jury was clear as they convicted on ALL COUNTS after a solid period of deliberation. Its unfortunately imo that Judge Randolph chose to disregard their hard, honest and diligent efforts under great scrutiny and public interest.
MOO
Typical 'defence atty' response to Judge Randolph sentencing but interesting all the same imo:
I am not Sherlock H.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2023
- Messages
- 1,434
- Reaction score
- 13,953
Yes so very true. And wouldn’t it be interesting to know exactly what the two, FD & MT, were talking about and discussing in that Starbucks video sequence? IIRC the one when they were making a ‘trash’ disposal run on I believe the day of JF murder? IMO the distance between them and some body language exhibited might be telling to an expert. MOO
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 85,850
- Reaction score
- 288,276
Just an FYI - I believe we will be discussing Kent's part in this case here:
CT - Kent Mawhinney, 54, South Windsor, 21 Jan 2019 *Charged in connection to the disappearance of Jennifer Dulos*
Question? Who is the Judge in this case? And as Defense attorney I have Jeffrey Kestenband. - Correct? TIA if anyone can help me! Just updating my notes... getting ready for this case! :) Other than identifying the Court as Stamford JD, the docket provides no additional data to identify...
www.websleuths.com
Maybe a Mod can change his title with Jennifer's name first....
@MollyDDD, SHE is NO Sharon Stone as you brilliantly point out!
Thanks for the laugh...think we all really needed it.
MOO
Jmoose
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 7,021
- Reaction score
- 53,616
I think she actually thinks of herself more like Giselle Bunchen, because they are both tall, and South American.
gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,370
- Reaction score
- 229,834
Thanks. So her sentencing was within the guideline.
I’m just sad she was allowed to remain free on bail and raise her child to almost adulthood, while her victim lost the opportunity to raise her own.
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
WS AdminAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 194
- Guests online
- 2,043
- Total visitors
- 2,237