Silver Alert CT- Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 #7 *ARRESTS*

[sds71]

Put Fore Group in and it will come up

Let me know if you can open this file

 

[Jodiwankenobi8]

I am interested to know what was on the car wash video.

 

[curiousjo]

So did both a neighbor and the employee hear the 5 am loud noise? Could JD have been injured, yet still alive?

 

[MuddyTires]

The judge needs to gag him, imo.

On what basis?

There's a fair amount I disagree with Professor Chemerinsky on, but I do agree with him - and the long list of Constitutional scholars and civil rights organizations, that as a general rule, gag orders are antithetical to the First Amendment.

Indeed, the courts have recognized, gag orders are preemptively unconstitutional: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/181762.P.pdf

I find it troubling that so many want the court to impose a prior speech restraint on the attorney for a criminal defendant in a case for which there is not even a trial date.

Further, Rule 3.6 of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct provides the following:

Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. A statement made pursuant to this subsection shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity. (c) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to subsection (a) shall make a statement prohibited by subsection (a).

If someone believes Mr. Pattis is violating this rule, that person could refer him to the Connecticut state bar grievance committee for discipline. History could be made... he has a 25-year history as an attorney in Connecticut with no disciplinary action: Attorney/Firm Look-up

 

[LittleBitty]

BBM. At 5am on the 25th? Did the employee return to NC in his own truck so early in the morning the day after the attack?

Great question! But that was the property, 61 Sturbridge Rd. The employee was working there that week where the banging was coming from at 5 am on May 25th.

When I heard about the banging, I doubted it was FD, just bc Farmington is an hour away and it was the morning after. He had to have received some information that Jennifer had been reported missing and that there was a Silver Alert for her on the 24th. JMO. He turned over his phone sometime on the 25th to authorities. And probably that same day LE put the tail on him. I just felt like he had already disposed of Jennifer the previous day. Jennifer is in the details May 24th. JMO.

I think the employee was the nagging piece I was worried about, I don’t know about the rest of y’all. I figured FD wanted someone to frame, some type of diversion, some type of plausible deniability.

I guess this shows that there is truly no such thing as a perfect crime. It reeks of FD’s arrogance and lack of knowledge about cameras being everywhere these days. Which is kinda scary but I’m kinda glad about in this case.

 

[Jodiwankenobi8]

On what basis?

There's a fair amount I disagree with Professor Chemerinsky on, but I do agree with him - and the long list of Constitutional scholars and civil rights organizations, that as a general rule, gag orders are antithetical to the First Amendment.

Indeed, the courts have recognized, gag orders are preemptively unconstitutional: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/181762.P.pdf

I find it troubling that so many want the court to impose a prior speech restraint on the attorney for a criminal defendant in a case for which there is not even a trial date.

Further, Rule 3.6 of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct provides the following:



If someone believes Mr. Pattis is violating this rule, that person could refer him to the Connecticut state bar grievance committee for discipline. History could be made... he has a 25-year history as an attorney in Connecticut with no disciplinary action: Attorney/Firm Look-up

I believe his releasing information about a current open case is troubling.

 

[Curious in CT]

This

He’s good at spin but this case is going to be a lot different for him. CCTV isn’t a human witness that makes mistakes.

It’s going to be very difficult to defend FD once all the videos are put together in chronological order. add to that we have motive (not that the state needs one), opportunity, ability (he is physically capable), DNA (in a place that FD remarked to witnesses it couldn’t be), disposal of the crime scene evidence, pre-planning (altered license plates, truck swap), etc...it’s not just a few circumstantial pieces that Pattis can knock down. It’s camera and satellite and phone data. And the fact that FD is just flat out not a likable stand up guy. He’s broke and lived off his wife’s parents fortune who brazenly had an affair.

 

[MemPat]

I'm somewhat skeptical that FD would have disposed of JD's remains in a well frequented skiing pond.

With that said I learned long ago never to underestimate the brazen stupidity of individuals like FD that think they can get away with a crime like this

I just hope LE has enough evidence to charge FD with or without the recovery of JD's body

With that said I really hope that they can recover JD so that the family can give her the proper burial that she and the family deserves

It would without a doubt help strengthen their case against FD and MT and help bring at least a bit of comfort for her family

JMO

ab01, I'm totally counting on FD's stupidity and MT being stoned (MOO).

I'm convinced that FD went into a rage when he found everything he thought belonged to him slipping away.....

1. He knew continuing to live in splendor while skiing his days away depended on Jennifer's family money...the cars, the houses, the khaki shorts (Ha!). [Hey, maybe his running shorts are bloodied and in a bag somewhere!]

2. She didn't want the children to become pro skiers so he would lose the good life of travel and notoriety as their coach.

3. With the dissolution of their marriage, FD would be required to eventually cough up the 2.5 million he owed the family coffers.

I believe he showed up to "talk some sense into her" and when she wouldn't give an inch, he struck her with a handy object in the garage....a bat, a pipe, some piece of boating equipment? (Maybe whatever it is went into a bag but I'm betting they're looking for it with some pointers from MT.)

So may I reiterate that I don't see a master plan at work here, just a dummy who got mad, then scared enough to incorporate another dummy into a hastily organized plan to cover up his madness.....always a mistake.

MOO up to my chin!

Edit: Now that I've caught up and read about FD's vehicle switch, have I changed my mind to believe this was a well-calculated diabolical plot?

I have not. Maybe FD has flirted with the idea of killing Jennifer before but, with planning, I believe he would have killed her in a place that didn't have to be cleaned.

Was the truck switch another lucky break for him? At first glance, maybe, but it actually looks like it's about to make him look guiltier. One smear of blood in the employee's trunk and FD is sunk! MOO again.

 

[TexLil]

@DennisHouseTV on Twitter

Dennis House on Twitter

NEXT: Word that a person connected to Fotis Dulos has hired a criminal defense attorney. The story and new details on the disappearance of Jennifer Dulos tonight at 5 on your evening news on Channel 3 @WFSBnews

The employee? MOO

 

[citygirl]

.

Ford Focus kinda cracked me up.

 

[sds71]

Courtney Zieller (@courtneyzieller) on Twitter

MISSING MOM: A housekeeper, polygraphs and now, another attorney. It’s all connected to the case of Jennifer Dulos. The mother of 5 who has been missing for almost 3 weeks. I’ll have the newest information at 5pm & 6pm on
@WFSBnews

 

[Jmoose]

Pattis said the other day at the hearing that he had called MT atty 3x and had no call back. Could be smoke and mirrors but no way to double check this that I see.

Does anyone have any ideas on why Pattis in his public stmts wants to be complicit in any relationship between FD and MT? The stmt today about having a client that loves MT and would like nothing more than telling her that he loves her? Really? Perhaps this was the quid pro quo for FD not contacting MT during this process? IDK but Pattis has been spending alot of his precious time with the media making statments about MT rather than his client. There is a reason he is doing this but I'm not yet certain what it is? Any ideas?

When I read that Pattis said his client loves MT and wishes he could tell her so, I knew that he was communicating for FD. He is “passing notes” for his client, and it’s designed to keep MT in line, I think. It does seem weird that he is talking a lot about MT, and not a lot about his client, but maybe he is deflecting attention away from FD. Or something. Hard to tell what this guy is doing,

 

[ab01]

with all the tips coming in - there HAS to be something useful, right?

I think its highly likely that before long(if they can’t already) Investigators will be able to chart almost all of FD’s movements on that day.

I think a lot of it will have to do with combing through 100s of hours of surveillance video turned in by the public and eye witnesses

Jmo

 

[Eli9]

I think its highly likely that before long Investigators will be able to chart almost all of FD’s movements on that day.

I think a lot of it will have to do with combing through 100s of hours of surveillance video turned in by the public and eye witnesses

Jmo

I like how you think.

 

[oviedo]

I think its highly likely that before long(if they can’t already) Investigators will be able to chart almost all of FD’s movements on that day.

I think a lot of it will have to do with combing through 100s of hours of surveillance video turned in by the public and eye witnesses

Jmo

This ! I just don’t think he was that careful

 

[Twistinginthewind]

MT doesn’t strike me as the kind of woman who is intimidated by anyone. No morals, no respect for the law or others and loves FD.

FD has a history (with JD at least, don't know about his relationship with his previous wife or why they divorced) of being intimidating, threatening, and controlling of his intimate partner as documented in court proceedings by his wife of 15 plus years. JMO, I see no reason why he would suddenly stop being that kind of guy with his next partner, MT, regardless of love or convenience or whatever brought them together.

Whether or not people think MT's in the wrong for being with him prior to and during the divorce proceedings, it was also his choice to cheat on and then leave his wife and move in with MT and her daughter. He's the most morally bankrupt of the pair of them IMO for breaking his wedding vows and leaving his family to be with his 'paramour' and borrowing millions of dollars from his wife's wealthy family he has no intention of paying back. I bet JD was relieved he was with another woman so she could distance herself from FD bit by bit cuz he was soooo scary, she told the courts she was afraid of him and he had threatened her with violence, absconding with their children, and spelled out revenge fantasies to her about what he would do to people who had wronged him.

Therefore, I believe it's possible that MT could be scared of him or intimidated by him or is an emotionally or otherwise battered domestic partner IMO, even if it was just a dawning realization over the last few years she's been with him. It's classic behavior IMO for someone who may love their domineering partner but lives in fear of retaliation or worse if they don't go along with things, sometimes doing things they wouldn't otherwise on their own to keep the peace with someone who initially seemed charming and won them over, but later revealed themselves to be quite off (to say the least).

It could even be as simple as he was a 'successful businessman' she had worked closely with, and he was charming and he told her he was leaving his wife, and she fell for him, and/or she thought he was a good provider for her and her daughter who settled there as citizens from another country, and she towed the line and went along with whatever he said to keep the peace and maintain stability and the nice big home for her and her daughter. No one knows what he told her to convince her to go with him to Hartford to drop off the bags with JD's blood in them. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors with a couple, but IMO MT looks pretty haggard in court photos / is not a happy camper. She could have been secretly miserable sharing her life with him of late, you never know. I just don't buy that she's the bad actor or even an equal partner in all this (JD's assault & disappearance), or was even complicit in JD's disappearance if she was under duress to help him after the fact at his insistence with threats or innuendos about what would happen to her and her daughter if she didn't go along with his directives.

This is all JMO, but I just don't give FD an ounce of credit for being a standup guy towards anyone he knows, and think he's a very disturbed, manipulative psycho/sociopath with a track record of bullying & intimidating & possibly worse (the 'freak accidents' in his family) and there's no reason in my mind he would have treated MT any differently (once he won her over and had her in his clutches). Time will tell if she has acted under her own free will as the investigation proceeds, or there was something much more sinister going on in their relationship. I can only hope that she gives LE some exclusive info that helps them find JD as quickly as possible. I'm encouraged that she has separate legal counsel, they are not in contact with FD or his legal counsel, and she met with detectives twice last week for several hours -- hopefully something will break soon in the investigation and she is doing right by JD's loved ones by telling LE everything she knows about the week JD disappeared.

 

[Curious in CT]

Please forgive me if I already liked/reposted this, but worth resharing (with my bolded points, can't recall the acronym for that):

It’s going to be very difficult to defend FD once all the videos are put together in chronological order. add to that we have motive (not that the state needs one), opportunity, ability (he is physically capable), DNA (in a place that FD remarked to witnesses it couldn’t be), disposal of the crime scene evidence, pre-planning (altered license plates, truck swap), etc.

 

[ab01]

This ! I just don’t think he was that careful

It was brazen as much as it was stupid.

Broad daylight and all

Middle of a highly controversial divorce

I’m not sure there was a lot of critical thinking involved to be honest

Jmo

 

[RoosterRock]

When I read that Pattis said his client loves MT and wishes he could tell her so, I knew that he was communicating for FD. He is “passing notes” for his client, and it’s designed to keep MT in line, I think. It does seem weird that he is talking a lot about MT, and not a lot about his client, but maybe he is deflecting attention away from FD. Or something. Hard to tell what this guy is doing,

No way FD wants to lose MT, she has very deep pockets with her relatives, not just the income from baby daddy - IMO. FD also at this point will never get another willing sugar mama to grease his dirty pockets again JMO. But attorney also wants to follow his clients possible source for future payments. Money always talks.....forget about what her part in this awful crime is??? there are so many possiblities we may never know.....JMO

 

[sun16]

So the banging must have been the Fore employee working on the house in the early AM. Seems like not as big of a deal now.