Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 #15 *ARRESTS*

[gitana1]

Agree with you.

But the issue might become that the entire process of defending this character/FD in the reality show being put on by Pattis is viewed quite simply as a 'joke' and not worthy of consideration and this could have unfortunate consequences IMO.

The legal system is designed the way it is for a reason and I'm baffled why Pattis seems to want to diminish the process of putting on defense of his client to the level of being perceived as a 'joke' or 'show'? Its unclear to me how given the lack of discovery how public chatter of any kind from a defense atty whose client is facing serious charges is in his clients best interests in the long run?

I wish the court would issue a gag order.

ETA I should have read ahead!!

 

[gitana1]

NP is just blowing hot air, IMO, he has to, what other option does he have?
Here at WS, we can see right through it, but the media is picking up every thing he says and running wild with it. In FD's mind he probably thinks people are falling for it and he is winning.

I am just sitting here waiting for the other shoe to drop on FD. All in good time, IMO.

I can't bring myself to be happy about GF gaining custody, because these children have now lost both their parents, I am simply relieved that she gained custody. But it's all terribly sad!

And I am still wondering, where the heck is Jennifer?

He is certainly blustering and I've never understood that technique.

But his motions are sharp. And his statements at intial bond hearing were calculated and canny.

The dude knows what he's doing. He knows how to play this game.

And while much of his bluster just seems delusional and stupid to me, I guess it works on some?

I noticed when he came on the case there were some opinions posted on here that showed a pretty quick shift in perception. Suddenly there were a few wondering if he was really guilty. If maybe it was MT who did it all.

And then I started to see more comments sympathetic to him. Having a hard time believing he could do such a thing to his kids. Feeling generally sorry for him. Talking about his good looks and how that apparently made it hard to view him as guilty. Etc.

I veer from feeling confident there will be justice to worrying a little about who might land on the jury.

 

[afitzy]

There's no such thing as a collaborative collegial relationship in criminal cases. They aren't working together to resolve a matter for their clients. They're fighting hard - one side for justice and the other for the rights and freedom of their client.

This kind of public bluster can occur with some "celebrity" criminal defense attorneys. I never really understood it. Geragos. Baez. They just seem delusional and creepy to me. I don't know how it works.

But it doesn't always mean they're rude when communicating with the other side.

Regardless, there's nothing collaborative about this. NP isn't going to have to "work with" the state. Not close. It's not a divorce where the sides could come to an equitable resolution for all. It's a serious fight with only one winner.

You are correct and my description of what Pattis said in the AJ Radio show was probably not explained in the clearest possible way.

What Pattis said in the AJ interview was that his communication in the prior case with the States Atty was not the best and because the communication was poor and trust had broken down that it hurt his ability in his opinion to try his case effectively and he lost that case.

I don't know all the details of the case being discussed and in the interview Pattis didn't mention the case (we now know the name of the case and so could research the specifics but I haven't done this yet due to lack of time). But what Pattis said is that in this prior case he chose to file a lawsuit rather than speaking directly or dealing directly with the now States Atty. Pattis said his choice of filing the lawsuit and not communicating directly hurt him and resulted in an adverse outcome on that case.

I was using the word 'collaborative' to get across the idea that while these two clearly have very different jobs, that communication is important between the two parties (State and Defense) as on a certain level they need to be able to work together to do their jobs.

Probably effective communication would have been better word to use rather than collaborative.

My other issue is that I'm not sure how the Pattis Patter to the press facilates effective/productive communication with the States Atty and his staff? Pattis is going public with the idea that the State is in his opinion not moving quickly enough in the discovery process and how in some way this is hurting his client FD.

It just seems that continuing to take his case to the press/public vs actually doing the nuts and bolts of his job and picking up the phone and working with the State Atty/staff that he is again doing what seems to have hurt him in his prior case against the States Atty. His present actions with the press comments fly in the face of what he said on the radio show that he had done in the past that hurt his case and resulted in him losing his case.

Sorry for any confusion. Hope this helps clarify what I was trying to get at.

 

[thekirbyfamily]

Great job, Norm. How about the fact that your client/their father cost his children the chance for a real relationship with a woman who loves them deeply? Every time this guy speaks I despise him more than I previously had thought was possible. JMO

It also said the GF used her own apartment as principal collateral for the loan. This man is a real loser...stressing out an 85 year old woman with fears she may lose her house. I wonder if this is why she sold the Pound Ridge home...

 

[Tink56]

He is certainly blustering and I've never understood that technique.

But his motions are sharp. And his statements at intial bond hearing were calculated and canny.

The dude knows what he's doing. He knows how to play this game.

And while much of his bluster just seems delusional and stupid to me, I guess it works on some?

I noticed when he came on the case there were some opinions posted on here that showed a pretty quick shift in perception. Suddenly there were a few wondering if he was really guilty. If maybe it was MT who did it all.

And then I started to see more comments sympathetic to him. Having a hard time believing he could do such a thing to his kids. Feeling generally sorry for him. Talking about his good looks and how that apparently made it hard to view him as guilty. Etc.

I veer from feeling confident there will be justice to worrying a little about who might land on the jury. (BBM)

I'm seriously concerned about your last comment. There are many people everywhere, even in Connecticut who don't pay any attention to the news nationally or in their own neighborhoods. Many people go into jury duty expecting a CSI experience and are intimidated by defense attorneys trying to undermine their ability to link evidence and use their own ability to make decisions. (I've sat on 4 juries and have seen it happen.)

The current social climate is not positive about LE in general with public outcries about police malfeasance. One of the questions generally asked by defense attorneys of perspective jurors is, "Do you believe that the police are always honest or tell the truth?" Also, another favorite is "Do you believe because someone is arrested they must be guilty?"

The jury instructions given by the judge are often debated out of the public's view (certainly the jury's) and defense attorneys can have an influence on what the jurors hear just before they go into final deliberations. A good defense attorney will vigorously argue for the inclusion of instructions that emphasize 'reasonable doubt' in many cases. Members of juries, IMO, often interpret this as NO DOUBT.

Blood evidence is always controversial because it cannot be "dated." NP has already rehearsed various scenarios to explain any blood in the garage and in the bags FD was throwing away.

The missing link at this time, as NP has already stated, is no known evidence placing FD in New Canaan or at JD's on the 24th. UGH! Hope the state can find that link....soon. MOO...

Frankly, I think NP is a formidable opponent and the State's Attorney is well aware of it. The lack of leaked information on the case speaks well of the a State's tight control over the investigation. As frustrating as it is...MOO.

 

[MDATCA]

Ha ha ha!!

Well, I think Casey Anthony still lives to this day on property owned by one of her attorneys. So gross.

I am pretty sure she lives with the PI. Yes the same one who is now investigating for FD.

 

[isabella88]

I am pretty sure she lives with the PI. Yes the same one who is now investigating for FD.

Yep, Pat McKenna. What a good samaritan he is ...

 

[gitana1]

I agree. If I am not mistaken, the latest order also mentioned counseling that FD was ordered to go to. Probably something bad that is in the redacted sections.

And you are very right to defend the judge. 250 court filings including "emergency" filings between FD and JD. 100 appearances in court. That is a ton.

Yeah. Two years for a case of this nature is not unusual. It's not long under the circumstances.

 

[Spyderlady]

He demonstrated that he was unable to put the needs of his children above his own, he was alienating them and making them lie for him, which is emotional abuse, he was violating court orders issued to protect the kids, like not having them around his mistress and he lied to the court.

All of this likely allowed the judge to reexamine past allegations and provided more credibility to those allegations when they were just he said she said allegations at the outset.

Those included that he was abusive to the kids forcing them to practice in grueling trianing sessions that lasted 8-10 hours, in order to make them little stars, that his kids were scared of him, that he had one drive a car on the open highway, that he dictated to his wife where she would live and when with the kids post-separation and that she and the kids would have to share their home with MT and MT's daughter and that he could access her mother's home whenever he wanted and that he chased her and threatened to kill his wife, among others.

Earlier we had posts blaming the family law judge for not issuing harsh enough orders against FD, essentially allowing him to murder her.

Now it's that her orders were too harsh prompting him to lose it and kill his wife.

Poor judge can't win.

IMO the orders were appropriate and well reasoned under the circumstances and everything the judge has done has been centered on the best interests of the kids.

To me it's clear this man murdered his wife. He's a murderer. And it was calculated, cold and evilly planned well in advance, IMO. He had no legitimate reason to be at her house the day she disappeared. I don't think they were even supposed to communicate directly.

The only ones to blame for this are the ones who murdered Jennifer and any accomplices. Not the family court.

Thank you for the information. I can assure you that I was not blaming the family court. My memory isn’t as good as it used to be, and I was merely asking why harsh conditions were imposed.

 

[gitana1]

You are correct and my description of what Pattis said in the AJ Radio show was probably not explained in the clearest possible way.

What Pattis said in the AJ interview was that his communication in the prior case with the States Atty was not the best and because the communication was poor and trust had broken down that it hurt his ability in his opinion to try his case effectively and he lost that case.

I don't know all the details of the case being discussed and in the interview Pattis didn't mention the case (we now know the name of the case and so could research the specifics but I haven't done this yet due to lack of time). But what Pattis said is that in this prior case he chose to file a lawsuit rather than speaking directly or dealing directly with the now States Atty. Pattis said his choice of filing the lawsuit and not communicating directly hurt him and resulted in an adverse outcome on that case.

I was using the word 'collaborative' to get across the idea that while these two clearly have very different jobs, that communication is important between the two parties (State and Defense) as on a certain level they need to be able to work together to do their jobs.

Probably effective communication would have been better word to use rather than collaborative.

My other issue is that I'm not sure how the Pattis Patter to the press facilates effective/productive communication with the States Atty and his staff? Pattis is going public with the idea that the State is in his opinion not moving quickly enough in the discovery process and how in some way this is hurting his client FD.

It just seems that continuing to take his case to the press/public vs actually doing the nuts and bolts of his job and picking up the phone and working with the State Atty/staff that he is again doing what seems to have hurt him in his prior case against the States Atty. His present actions with the press comments fly in the face of what he said on the radio show that he had done in the past that hurt his case and resulted in him losing his case.

Sorry for any confusion. Hope this helps clarify what I was trying to get at.

I don't know, besides plea negotiations, there really isn't much communication between counsel that I've seen. There's really no "picking up the phone" or "working with staff". That's not the nuts and bolts of a criminal case, unless there is clear evidence exonerating your client that you want the state to consider. Otherwise, there's nothing to work on with the state unless it's plea negotiations.

Everything is according to rules of procedure. The state has certain rules to follow when it comes to when and how it divulges evidence to the other side. The defense fights to hold them accountable. There are calls about that at times "Hey I need this video". But the bottom line is that if the state fails to provide evidence to the defense within a reasonable time prior to trial, it can be excluded.

There's some back and forth which happens on the date of certain hearings as to plea deal offers. Then there can be a bit of back and forth when it comes to any stipulations as to the admissibility of evidence. That usually happens after decisions by the court on motions in limine, and it happens at court.

I'm not sure what trust has to do with effectively litigating a criminal case except when it comes to plea deals and exculpatory evidence. So if the DA knows and trust the defense attorney who calls and says, "Hey, this case is really not about illegal drugs, it's about prescription medicines", the DA is going to be more likely to say, "Okay, let me look it over real quick and see what we can do", when it comes to the charges.

Phone calls between the sides aren't really part of the nuts and bolts of the job. There's not much overall communication.

And except for the above, having a good relationship with the opposing side isn't how criminal cases are won nor is the opposite why they're lost. Maybe he was talking about plea deals? I would have to read it or hear it.

However, plea deals involve a conviction of some sort, so there is no "win". Unless he means going from something like attempted murder with a gun allegation pled down to assault with intent to cause great bodily injury - so from 25 years to life (in CA) down to 2-6 years. Most defense attorneys would consider that a win. But if he means acquittal, that has nothing to do with communication. Either the exculpatory evidence is there or not.

Does that make sense at all?

 

[gitana1]

It also said the GF used her own apartment as principal collateral for the loan. This man is a real loser...stressing out an 85 year old woman with fears she may lose her house. I wonder if this is why she sold the Pound Ridge home...

Oh no!!

 

[gitana1]

I'm seriously concerned about your last comment. There are many people everywhere, even in Connecticut who don't pay any attention to the news nationally or in their own neighborhoods. Many people go into jury duty expecting a CSI experience and are intimidated by defense attorneys trying to undermine their ability to link evidence and use their own ability to make decisions. (I've sat on 4 juries and have seen it happen.)

The current social climate is not positive about LE in general with public outcries about police malfeasance. One of the questions generally asked by defense attorneys of perspective jurors is, "Do you believe that the police are always honest or tell the truth?" Also, another favorite is "Do you believe because someone is arrested they must be guilty?"

The jury instructions given by the judge are often debated out of the public's view (certainly the jury's) and defense attorneys can have an influence on what the jurors hear just before they go into final deliberations. A good defense attorney will vigorously argue for the inclusion of instructions that emphasize 'reasonable doubt' in many cases. Members of juries, IMO, often interpret this as NO DOUBT.

Blood evidence is always controversial because it cannot be "dated." NP has already rehearsed various scenarios to explain any blood in the garage and in the bags FD was throwing away.

The missing link at this time, as NP has already stated, is no known evidence placing FD in New Canaan or at JD's on the 24th. UGH! Hope the state can find that link....soon. MOO...

Frankly, I think NP is a formidable opponent and the State's Attorney is well aware of it. The lack of leaked information on the case speaks well of the a State's tight control over the investigation. As frustrating as it is...MOO.

I'm with you. I do feel they have enough to sustain the hindering and tampering obstruction charges, but while they may ultimately have enough evidence for most of us to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to murder, a good defense attorney might be able to muddy the waters.

The example of the voir dire questions you gave is an excellent example of trying to influence the jury before they're even picked. They don't actually care as much about what the answers will be as much as they care to plant that seed of doubt with the question itself.

Very well written post, by the way.

 

[gitana1]

I am pretty sure she lives with the PI. Yes the same one who is now investigating for FD.

Are you kidding? Holy smokes!

 

[gitana1]

Thank you for the information. I can assure you that I was not blaming the family court. My memory isn’t as good as it used to be, and I was merely asking why harsh conditions were imposed.

Ah. Got it.

 

[HopeForTheBest]

Deleted by me; I have no idea how I managed to combine so many quotes and posts in so many confusing ways!

 

[isabella88]

Are you kidding? Holy smokes!

Guess Casey looks better in a dress to McKenna than OJ.

 

[HopeForTheBest]

I'm with you. I do feel they have enough to sustain the hindering and tampering obstruction charges, but while they may ultimately have enough evidence for most of us to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to murder, a good defense attorney might be able to muddy the waters.

The example of the voir dire questions you gave is an excellent example of trying to influence the jury before they're even picked. They don't actually care as much about what the answers will be as much as they care to plant that seed of doubt with the question itself.

Very well written post, by the way.

This is why it is so important to teach people to think critically and to do their own research, not just go by Facebook. I can’t think of any other skill that is more important in this modern world.

 

[gitana1]

Guess Casey looks better in a dress to McKenna than OJ.

Ha ha!

 

[isabella88]

I'm with you. I do feel they have enough to sustain the hindering and tampering obstruction charges, but while they may ultimately have enough evidence for most of us to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to murder, a good defense attorney might be able to muddy the waters.

The example of the voir dire questions you gave is an excellent example of trying to influence the jury before they're even picked. They don't actually care as much about what the answers will be as much as they care to plant that seed of doubt with the question itself.

Very well written post, by the way.

Looking ahead to a jury situation concerns me deeply as well. This is probably due to my overall disappointment in the malleability of certain people. NP is certainly working the crowd already. Reasonable doubt depends to some extent on how reasonable the members of the jury are, and personalities worry me.

IMO, juries want tidy, concrete things like a body. If there ends up not being a body in this case, I think we should buckle our seat belts. The defense has already proved that they can and will play the character assassination game. If the jury comprises some members that have a chip on their shoulders about wealthy people (especially if moved to a lower-income area), things could be bad for the prosecution. Yes, FD lives the high life, but only because of mommy-in-law. It's scary what some people can relate to and sympathize with.

MOO. For what it's worth ...

 

[HopeForTheBest]

I only hope that everyone on the jury has known someone like FD who cheated brazenly on his spouse, put her down, let her do all the work with kids and more, and let his wife and her parents support him.