GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #71

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I can't speculate whether NP would do it, but evidently, from News12 report I posted above, Horn "referenced" Pattis's having a copy of it to them re MT's flashing the report on her computer. But consider this: If FD showed MT the report to read, and then MT asked for a copy of it, FD had only to run it off on his copy machine. He wouldn't have to risk sending it to her by email. And if she had a copy of it, why would she then digitize it and put it on her computer--other than during trial, when she may have done so with the intention of enlarging it and flashing it to some journalist. To my mind, if she did that she would've flashed it earlier on that day (and would've had a "cat that swallowed the canary" look on her face before she had that grin-producing conversation with AF). So I can't help thinking that someone sent her a copy of that report while she was sitting there at her trial. That would be pretty sensational. Is that the reason the authorities don't want to investigate how and when the report got on MT's laptop? MOO

Exactly @pernickety …. I agree entirely. And it should not be difficult at all to review the convicted felon’s computer and that file’s electronic signature and history. That would tell its origin and where it might have been created and shared. I strongly suspect it was a pdf format of a scanned or converted image.

And as suggested, IMO there is the separate matter of JS, AF, and also NP and what they or perhaps their offices might have done with it. IIUC two thirds of that group appears to concede at one point they had seen it or ‘had it’ or the like?

Is it even apparent that the CT commonwealth and police or court investigators even took that laptop to conduct a forensic examination of it and its contents? Nothing is clear IMO.

I wish some investigative journalists would pore into this matter. And properly expose what has happened. IMO what has occurred is despicable.

IMO it is reprehensible that a still missing slain mother of five continues to be disparaged with a suspect confidential report! And one that is supposed to be protected by court order and by seal IIRC! And now a convicted felon has been cited for contempt because of the deliberate, blatant, and contemptuous display of it and misuse and mishandling of it.

IMO the convicted felon shouldn’t even have had a copy of it! And neither should any of the above cited attorneys. Frankly it is none of her business. Unless she wants to continue to acknowledge and cite her involvement in the murder conspiracy of JF for which she was convicted.

So what exactly are the courts, judges, and State of Connecticut going to do about it?

Astounding collapse and handling of ‘justice’. / rant. MOO

 

[pernickety]

Exactly @pernickety …. I agree entirely. And it should not be difficult at all to review the convicted felon’s computer and that file’s electronic signature and history. That would tell its origin and where it might have been created and shared. I strongly suspect it was a pdf format of a scanned or converted image.

And as suggested, IMO there is the separate matter of JS, AF, and also NP and what they or perhaps their offices might have done with it. IIUC two thirds of that group appears to concede at one point they had seen it or ‘had it’ or the like?

Is it even apparent that the CT commonwealth and police or court investigators even took that laptop to conduct a forensic examination of it and its contents? Nothing is clear IMO.

I wish some investigative journalists would pore into this matter. And properly expose what has happened. IMO what has occurred is despicable.

IMO it is reprehensible that a still missing slain mother of five continues to be disparaged with a suspect confidential report! And one that is supposed to be protected by court order and by seal IIRC! And now a convicted felon has been cited for contempt because of the deliberate, blatant, and contemptuous display of it and misuse and mishandling of it.

IMO the convicted felon shouldn’t even have had a copy of it! And neither should any of the above cited attorneys. Frankly it is none of her business. Unless she wants to continue to acknowledge and cite her involvement in the murder conspiracy of GF for which she was convicted.

So what exactly are the courts, judges, and State of Connecticut going to do about it?

Astounding collapse and handling of ‘justice’. / rant. MOO

Thanks for your rant. So well said. CT used to be known as the land of steady habits. In the past decades it's become the land of government subterfuge. According to the first news reports, t he State's Atty's office did examine the metadata of the report to authenticate that it was the report in question. Possibly they did find out from whence it came to MT's laptop--but are covering it up? And the judiciary is pushing for a quiet plead deal on the contempt charge to make it go away?

 

[Jmoose]

I can't speculate whether NP would do it, but evidently, from News12 report I posted above, Horn "referenced" Pattis's having a copy of it to them re MT's flashing the report on her computer. But consider this: If FD showed MT the report to read, and then MT asked for a copy of it, FD had only to run it off on his copy machine. He wouldn't have to risk sending it to her by email. And if she had a copy of it, why would she then digitize it and put it on her computer--other than during trial, when she may have done so with the intention of enlarging it and flashing it to some journalist. To my mind, if she did that she would've flashed it earlier on that day (and would've had a "cat that swallowed the canary" look on her face before she had that grin-producing conversation with AF). So I can't help thinking that someone sent her a copy of that report while she was sitting there at her trial. That would be pretty sensational. Is that the reason the authorities don't want to investigate how and when the report got on MT's laptop? MOO

I am stunned (but not surprised) that the authorities may not want to investigate how she got access (in whatever manner). I just have a gut feeling that she’s always had a copy and actually showed it to her lawyers. Then digitized it specifically so she could display it in court. Her lawyerss were completely on board with her showing it, in my opinion-it couldn’t be proved that they gave it to her if she already had it-I am 100% sure Audrey Felson saw it, considering she was facing it, and it was in gigantic font. I think that smile during the conversation was after Felson said “ok, now go”.

 

[Jmoose]

Thanks for your rant. So well said. CT used to be known as the land of steady habits. In the past decades it's become the land of government subterfuge. According to the first news reports, t he State's Atty's office did examine the metadata of the report to authenticate that it was the report in question. Possibly they did find out from whence it came to MT's laptop--but are covering it up? And the judiciary is pushing for a quiet plead deal on the contempt charge to make it go away?

What would make them want it to go away? I am naive enough to think that lawyers and judges wouldn’t want to get caught doing these kinds of things, but I suppose, after everything else we’ve seen, this is not a matter of concern to any of them-how can this be?

 

[pernickety]

B

I am stunned (but not surprised) that the authorities may not want to investigate how she got access (in whatever manner). I just have a gut feeling that she’s always had a copy and actually showed it to her lawyers. Then digitized it specifically so she could display it in court. Her lawyerss were completely on board with her showing it, in my opinion-it couldn’t be proved that they gave it to her if she already had it-I am 100% sure Audrey Felson saw it, considering she was facing it, and it was in gigantic font. I think that smile during the conversation was after Felson said “ok, now go”.

But what would Felsen get out of having MT display the report in court during trial, considering the risk to her law license?

 

[pernickety]

What would make them want it to go away? I am naive enough to think that lawyers and judges wouldn’t want to get caught doing these kinds of things, but I suppose, after everything else we’ve seen, this is not a matter of concern to any of them-how can this be?

Right, they wouldn't want to get caught.

 

[Jmoose]

B

But what would Felsen get out of having MT display the report in court during trial, considering the risk to her law license?

Since I don’t know what’s in the report (or at least don’t know all of it), I can’t say what Felson might get out of it. Maybe a mistrial-that is the most likely thing they would want. I don’t think there was a real risk to her license, since nobody appeared to even ask her if she knew what MT was doing (she obviously did, though), and I am confident that there is no digital evidence that either Felson or Schoenhorn gave it to her. MT knew what was in the report the first time she was questioned by the police-of course, that isn’t evidence that she had a copy of it; FD may have merely told her what was in it. But-considering what MT has said, and what her family has posted in social media, and nobody has denied what she claimed was in the report, it’s safe to say that MT has at least seen the report. I think the reason that Schoenhorn wanted Judge Blawie to give him a copy is because he already knew what was in it, good, bad, or ugly. The contents of the report didn’t have to be true, in my opinion, for it to be potentially useful-Schoenhorn may have said he wanted it to be made public, but what I think he really wanted was for people, especially the jurors, to think the prosecution was getting in the way of the defense’s presentation of evidence that exonerates MT. The report’s value may really have been useful only because it was not permitted to be made public, so it piqued the curiousity of people who haven’t had access to it-the defense kept pointing to it as if it’s got exculpatory value, while knowing that people won’t ever get to know what’s in it. I hope I am making sense but I am really tired. I will probably read this tomorrow and wonder what the heck I was trying to say.

 

[pernickety]

Since I don’t know what’s in the report (or at least don’t know all of it), I can’t say what Felson might get out of it. Maybe a mistrial-that is the most likely thing they would want. I don’t think there was a real risk to her license, since nobody appeared to even ask her if she knew what MT was doing (she obviously did, though), and I am confident that there is no digital evidence that either Felson or Schoenhorn gave it to her. MT knew what was in the report the first time she was questioned by the police-of course, that isn’t evidence that she had a copy of it; FD may have merely told her what was in it. But-considering what MT has said, and what her family has posted in social media, and nobody has denied what she claimed was in the report, it’s safe to say that MT has at least seen the report. I think the reason that Schoenhorn wanted Judge Blawie to give him a copy is because he already knew what was in it, good, bad, or ugly. The contents of the report didn’t have to be true, in my opinion, for it to be potentially useful-Schoenhorn may have said he wanted it to be made public, but what I think he really wanted was for people, especially the jurors, to think the prosecution was getting in the way of the defense’s presentation of evidence that exonerates MT. The report’s value may really have been useful only because it was not permitted to be made public, so it piqued the curiousity of people who haven’t had access to it-the defense kept pointing to it as if it’s got exculpatory value, while knowing that people won’t ever get to know what’s in it. I hope I am making sense but I am really tired. I will probably read this tomorrow and wonder what the heck I was trying to say.

Your post does make sense to me. JS wanted to put reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror. But also he was being paid by MT's family, and they wanted the report to be made public. As to Felsen--I don't know what would make her think she could get away with encouraging MT to show the report on her computer during trial, but she was apparently right, it seems. But I do know that the video of her conversation with MT was abridged. I was listening to the trial on my PC while puttering around the room, filing, etc., occasionally watching the screen, then was caught by the camera focusing on that conversation. AF was telling MT something for several minutes. I was caught by beginnings of smile on MT's face, couldn't quite believe it. Then her smile grew and she seemed excited by what AF was telling her. Now MT is claiming the videographer shouldn't have recorded that conversation? I'd be glad to see that issue taken up, if only for the chance to see the unabridged version and have the videographer testify as to why they cut part of it. I think AF was telling MT a lot more than "Display it now."

 

[LosAngeles]

I wonder if she'll claim "ineffectual council" on Horn and Mini Horn for the contempt charges? Since it seemed endorsed and encouraged by them. Similar to Bowman.

 

[Seattle1]

I wonder if she'll claim "ineffectual council" on Horn and Mini Horn for the contempt charges? Since it seemed endorsed and encouraged by them. Similar to Bowman.

Indeed! Sure would fit the personality where nothing has ever been MT's fault!

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I wonder if she'll claim "ineffectual council" on Horn and Mini Horn for the contempt charges? Since it seemed endorsed and encouraged by them. Similar to Bowman.

I wonder if to do anything along those lines, investigators would need to investigate both JS and AF for their role if any, in the matter of the display of the document. And rather than ineffective, it might actually be conduct that could be in contempt of the order for the sealed document?

Have we seen any evidence that an investigation into defense counsel’s actions has occurred?

According to @pernickety in post # 422 there has been some forensic examination of the convicted felon’s computer - but results are not yet available AFAIK. MOO

 

[Jmoose]

I wonder if she'll claim "ineffectual council" on Horn and Mini Horn for the contempt charges? Since it seemed endorsed and encouraged by them. Similar to Bowman.

Always someone else’s fault, as far as she is concerned

 

[pernickety]

According to @pernickety in post # 422 there has been some forensic examination of the convicted felon’s computer - but results are not yet available AFAIK. MOO

I'm not sure of the forensic exam now that I've looked for the article on the warrant I remembered from the Hearst papers. Possibly they only looked at a screen shot of it and compared it to the actual report? I see the Courant has a longer article on the warrant, but I forgot how to get into the Courant without subscribing.

 

[pernickety]

I wonder if to do anything along those lines, investigators would need to investigate both JS and AF for their role if any, in the matter of the display of the document. And rather than ineffective, it might actually be conduct that could be in contempt of the order for the sealed document?

Have we seen any evidence that an investigation into defense counsel’s actions has occurred?

According to @pernickety in post # 422 there has been some forensic examination of the convicted felon’s computer - but results are not yet available AFAIK. MOO

Here's part of the Courant article. Doesn't look like the state did a metadata exam.

"...In the warrant affidavit, the State’s Attorney’s Office wrote that they reviewed a video stream from the Law and Crime Network in which “the broadcast video moved in closer to Troconis and captured the full screen of her computer. The picture was brought in closer to include the left section of her computer screen, as everything to the right was cropped off.”

Division of Criminal Justice Inspector Christopher Gioielli wrote in the warrant affidavit that he took a screenshot of the video that showed nine partial sentences containing about 82 letters, numbers and punctuation marks that mirror page 50 of the sealed report. That page, the warrant affidavit said, included a forensic evaluation of the Dulos family as it related to the family court case of Jennifer Dulos vs. Fotis Dulos.

The Courant reviewed Law and Crime’s video stream and the timestamp noted in the warrant and also captured a screenshot of the moment Troconis’ laptop was shown..."

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Here's part of the Courant article. Doesn't look like the state did a metadata exam.

"...In the warrant affidavit, the State’s Attorney’s Office wrote that they reviewed a video stream from the Law and Crime Network in which “the broadcast video moved in closer to Troconis and captured the full screen of her computer. The picture was brought in closer to include the left section of her computer screen, as everything to the right was cropped off.”

Division of Criminal Justice Inspector Christopher Gioielli wrote in the warrant affidavit that he took a screenshot of the video that showed nine partial sentences containing about 82 letters, numbers and punctuation marks that mirror page 50 of the sealed report. That page, the warrant affidavit said, included a forensic evaluation of the Dulos family as it related to the family court case of Jennifer Dulos vs. Fotis Dulos.

The Courant reviewed Law and Crime’s video stream and the timestamp noted in the warrant and also captured a screenshot of the moment Troconis’ laptop was shown..."

Yikes @pernickety ….. so I now suspect, as many others fear, that someone doesn’t really want to look. What a horrid IMO miscarriage of justice if so. That is astounding.

What is that old adage: ‘the fox is ‘guarding’ the hen house’? And I use the word guarding quite loosely. If this is true, and all the talk of a ‘settlement’ in the contempt case, that seems improper too IMO. Wonder who is covering what and for whom or so it seems? No one accountable, nothing to see here…… let’s move on please……. SMH. MOO

 

[Jmoose]

Yikes @pernickety ….. so I now suspect, as many others fear, that someone doesn’t really want to look. What a horrid IMO miscarriage of justice if so. That is astounding.

What is that old adage: ‘the fox is ‘guarding’ the hen house’? And I use the word guarding quite loosely. If this is true, and all the talk of a ‘settlement’ in the contempt case, that seems improper too IMO. Wonder who is covering what and for whom or so it seems? No one accountable, nothing to see here…… let’s move on please……. SMH. MOO

I must be really dense because I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t want to look at this. Are they just lazy? Is somebody “important” holding the line on this? Why isn’t Judge Heller absolutely furious about this breach of her ruling?

 

[pernickety]

Yikes @pernickety ….. so I now suspect, as many others fear, that someone doesn’t really want to look. What a horrid IMO miscarriage of justice if so. That is astounding.

What is that old adage: ‘the fox is ‘guarding’ the hen house’? And I use the word guarding quite loosely. If this is true, and all the talk of a ‘settlement’ in the contempt case, that seems improper too IMO. Wonder who is covering what and for whom or so it seems? No one accountable, nothing to see here…… let’s move on please……. SMH. MOO

And the most awful part of it is that we don't have one journalist that has asked those questions of, e.g., the State's Attorney's office. Thank goodness for Law & Crime's videographer, who captured MT's misdeed in such close proximity to an officer of the court, i.e., her attorney, Audrey Felsen.

 

[pernickety]

I must be really dense because I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t want to look at this. Are they just lazy? Is somebody “important” holding the line on this? Why isn’t Judge Heller absolutely furious about this breach of her ruling?

And not only Judge Heller. Judge Blawie and Judge Randolph should be furious too--and calling upon the Chief Disciplinary Counsel to look into whether there was involvement of any attorney.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

And not only Judge Heller. Judge Blawie and Judge Randolph should be furious too--and calling upon the Chief Disciplinary Counsel to look into whether there was involvement of any attorney.

Yes @pernickety ….. and the only thing IMO that could be any worse, is if for some reason there is belief that it is somehow up to the estate of JF to press for conformance with judicial requirements. That would be horrid if the case. A contempt citation was issued against the convicted felon! And those watching the trial all saw the offense.

As you note too…… why isn’t / aren’t some investigative journalists on this? Talk about ‘low hanging fruit’ IMO. IANAL. Something is up IMO. MOO

 

[pernickety]

Yes @pernickety ….. and the only thing IMO that could be any worse, is if for some reason there is belief that it is somehow up to the estate of JF to press for conformance with judicial requirements. That would be horrid if the case. A contempt citation was issued against the convicted felon! And those watching the trial all saw the offense.

As you note too…… why isn’t / aren’t some investigative journalists on this? Talk about ‘low hanging fruit’ IMO. IANAL. Something is up IMO. MOO

Another thing--Did MT actually increase the font size or did she zoom the report? If she changed the font size, I think she'd need editing software to do that to a pdf? And if she "altered" a document that could have been evidence in a public hearing, that could have been a violation of CT criminal statute Sec. 53a-155-- a felony. MOO