Silver Alert CT- Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 #9 *ARRESTS*

[doyoulovemepfg]

I wonder if he will fire this lawyer and get a new one.

Honestly I'm surprised NP has time for this case given the developments in the Infowars case that have just happened with his client.

 

[KNinTX]

Honestly I'm surprised NP has time for this case given the developments in the Infowars case that have just happened with his client.

I was thinking the same thing! Is it common for a criminal attorney to have two high profile cases of this magnitude on their plate at the same time? Seems like alot to handle.

 

[gitana1]

Thank you!

If anyone has the full motion from NP I'd like to read it. In the meantime, I did some research. I couldn't find a super direct code section but there are some code sections I found involving trying to seek the return of evidence.

One applies mostly to victims of crime whose property was stolen or taken and used by another in the omission of a crime. The section talks mostly about stolen property but there are some key phrases in that section that may be important here as there may be case law building upon those ideas or they may reflect general principles about seized property in CT. There is also a portion that seems to more directly apply.

One is that stolen property must be returned to the owner upon request unless "good cause" can be shown for its retention and then it can be held for a period determined by the court.

There's also a part in which it states that other property seized that was not stolen from a victim (and was not drugs or other contraband) will be returned to the owner at the end of the criminal case. Which is typical and important here:

Connecticut General Statutes Title 54. Criminal Procedure § 54-36a. Definitions. Inventory. Return of stolen property. Disposition of other seized property. Return of compliance

(c) Unless such seized property is stolen property and is ordered returned pursuant to subsection (b) of this section or unless such seized property is adjudicated a nuisance in accordance with section 54-33g , or unless the court finds that such property shall be forfeited or is contraband, or finds that such property is a controlled drug, a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia as defined in subdivision (8), (9) or (20) of section 21a-240 , it shall, at the final disposition of the criminal action or as soon thereafter as is practical, or, if there is no criminal action, at any time upon motion of the prosecuting official of such court, order the return of such property to its owner within six months upon proper claim therefor. (Emphasis by me).
Connecticut General Statutes Title 54. Criminal Procedure § 54-36a | FindLaw

The other code section is about "unlawfully obtained" property. That one discusses how one can move to seek the return and suppression of evidence unlawfully obtained - no warrant or a lack of sufficient probable cause, e.g.- so the key word there in looking at is probable cause:

"A person aggrieved by search and seizure may move the court which has jurisdiction of such person’s case...on the ground that:...there was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued".
» Connecticut General Statutes 54-33f – Motion for return of unlawfully seized property and suppression as evidenceLawServer

Taken together, and without benefit of reading his actual motion (and also by considering due process laws regarding evidence in other states), I believe that NP is seeking to force the issue as to whether there is actual probable cause to seize the property (which may give him an idea as to its evidentiary value) and good cause to retain it.

He is doing every last thing he can to fight the state.

 

[doyoulovemepfg]

I was thinking the same thing! Is it common for a criminal attorney to have two high profile cases of this magnitude on their plate at the same time? Seems like alot to handle.

I almost wonder if he knew what AJ had done in the other case, and then took on FD's case pro bono as a means of deflecting the insane amounts of negative attention that he knew would be directed at him/AJ after the new developments in that case.

 

[gitana1]

I wonder if he will fire this lawyer and get a new one.

No way. I kind of said that facetiously. He's a nut but a smart one. Meaning he knows he is unlikely to get any evidence seized returned (unless they truly don;t need it), but these are smart motions because: 1) He is forcing the state to prove that his client's due process laws have been protected in the process. This is the primary goal of any criminal defense attorney when their client is guilty; 2) He is trying to get whatever info, no matter how small, regarding the possible evidentiary value of items seized because at this stage of the game, the state doesn't have to divulge anything to him with regard to the murder investigation. And besides letting him know what evidence they have and eventually letting him have copies or access to evidence that will be used in the current tampering and hindering case, the time has not come for the state to divulge their theories or what the state believes the evidence shows as to those charges either.

He's putting the state through its paces. He's not going to get anything back that is part of the investigation. Not now. But he knows what he's doing.

 

[gitana1]

I was thinking the same thing! Is it common for a criminal attorney to have two high profile cases of this magnitude on their plate at the same time? Seems like alot to handle.

I don't like this attorney but I respect his abilities and I have no doubt he can easily handle both at once, as can most high profile criminal defense firms. He seems to me to be a workaholic who absolutely loves his job.

 

[oviedo]

If anyone has the full motion from NP I'd like to read it. In the meantime, I did some research. I couldn't find a super direct code section but there are some code sections I found involving trying to seek the return of evidence.

One applies mostly to victims of crime whose property was stolen or taken and used by another in the omission of a crime. The section talks mostly about stolen property but there are some key phrases in that section that may be important here as there may be case law building upon those ideas or they may reflect general principles about seized property in CT. There is also a portion that seems to more directly apply.

One is that stolen property must be returned to the owner upon request unless "good cause" can be shown for its retention and then it can be held for a period determined by the court.

There's also a part in which it states that other property seized that was not stolen from a victim (and was not drugs or other contraband) will be returned to the owner at the end of the criminal case. Which is typical and important here:

Connecticut General Statutes Title 54. Criminal Procedure § 54-36a. Definitions. Inventory. Return of stolen property. Disposition of other seized property. Return of compliance

(c) Unless such seized property is stolen property and is ordered returned pursuant to subsection (b) of this section or unless such seized property is adjudicated a nuisance in accordance with section 54-33g , or unless the court finds that such property shall be forfeited or is contraband, or finds that such property is a controlled drug, a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia as defined in subdivision (8), (9) or (20) of section 21a-240 , it shall, at the final disposition of the criminal action or as soon thereafter as is practical, or, if there is no criminal action, at any time upon motion of the prosecuting official of such court, order the return of such property to its owner within six months upon proper claim therefor. (Emphasis by me).
Connecticut General Statutes Title 54. Criminal Procedure § 54-36a | FindLaw

The other code section is about "unlawfully obtained" property. That one discusses how one can move to seek the return and suppression of evidence unlawfully obtained - no warrant or a lack of sufficient probable cause, e.g.- so the key word there in looking at is probable cause:

"A person aggrieved by search and seizure may move the court which has jurisdiction of such person’s case...on the ground that:...there was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued".
» Connecticut General Statutes 54-33f – Motion for return of unlawfully seized property and suppression as evidenceLawServer

Taken together, and without benefit of reading his actual motion (and also by considering due process laws regarding evidence in other states), I believe that NP is seeking to force the issue as to whether there is actual probable cause to seize the property (which may give him an idea as to its evidentiary value) and good cause to retain it.

He is doing every last thing he can to fight the state.

I'm looking....
Fotis Dulos files motion to get back evidence seized

 

[ab01]

He’s saying that there’s not going to be a trial for tampering, and then a trial for murder.

The tampering charge will be on top of a future murder charge, and he’ll stand trial for both at the same time.

So you’ll have a murder count, a tampering count, and whatever else.

Yep exactly thanks MG for clarifying what I was trying to say

 

[RoosterRock]

I doubt the thought would have even crossed his mind. That was so long ago and I'm sure this guy has a lot more to think about than trying to come up with subtle symbolic references to a trial that occurred 25 years ago. Imo

You may be right, but the OJ case is legendary transcends time and has been on as a TV movie recently, and both attorney and JD are of the age to recognize the similarities. I instantly thought of the OJ case when the divorce filings became known with the FD temper and the JD fear of him, and the judge not recognizing the potential danger JD was in... I thought the glove was just to show he always uses a glove, but a subtle reference to an acquittal would be clever. "If it fits you must acquit."
I don't think NP is that clever, definitely setting up "normalcy routines" to justify garbage dumping with some possible glove scenario as evidence....

 

[Wsimm]

On the topic of FD getting from Lapham Road to JD's house on Welles Lane, as a local I'll try to give the group some perspective.

If I had to leave a car on Lapham and get to Welles Lane myself and didn't want anyone involved I'd consider 1) Train from Talmadge Hill to NC Train Station then a Taxi paid in Cash from NCTS to either the bottom of the cul de sac at Welles or to the Winter Club on the corner of Ponus Ridge and Frogtown (quick walk/jog from there to the house); 2) Jog from Lapham via Old Stamford Road to NC Train to Taxi; 3) Jog through Waveny to South Avenue up to Farm Rd to Old Stamford to NC Train to Taxi; 4) Uber/Lyft readily available in NC, with burner phone/Prepaid card.

If he jogged or walked from Lapham Road at that time of day on a Friday when school was in session, there are people driving to Talmadge Hill Train Station for trains to NYC, there are school drop offs at NC High School, Saxe Middle School and East Elementary School very close to Lapham Road and plenty of joggers so tons of people and activity to blend in but the route to her house is very dangerous, particularly in either getting to Ponus Ridge and approaching Wells from the safer direction on Frogtown or getting to Welles on Frogtown from the much more dangerous Weed Street approach. And besides the Country School, West Elementary is just North on Ponus Ridge so again, lots of traffic but people do jog all over town.

As far as a run to JD's house on Welles from Lapham Road, (in case you want to follow via Google maps):

A. The most direct way to run would be to go North to 106 Old Stamford Road up to Richmond Hill Road (has a train crossing that stops traffic and walkers periodically) to Weed Street, quick Right and left on Frogtown. Pretty safe until Frogtown which is super dangerous from that point on to Welles.

B. Crossing at Jelliff Mill from Old Stamford to Ponus Ridge is pretty dangerous but fairly straight with yards to jump into if a car comes flying at you and then is definitely not too bad after that. So that would be Lapham Rd to Old Stamford left to Jelliff Mill, right on Jelliff Mill , Right on Ponus Ridge, Right on Frogtown.

C. The other practical option is same as A but instead of a left on Frogtown stay North until Irwin Park and cross over to Ponus Ridge on Wahackme. If my kids had to do this walk/run, this is the route I'd send them. Then go left on Ponus Ridge, left on Frogtown to Welles.

Hope this isn't too detailed to be of some use.

As a local could you give us an idea how thick the Norton River wooded area is that’s located directly behind JD’s home? From lot line maps I see 2 roads running somewhat parallel and behind Welles Lane. I believe one road is named Indian Spring and the other Spring Water? It appears the Norton River wooded area runs through the homes located on theses streets as well? There are at least 2 homes for sale that have been on the market for quite sometime on the above mentioned roads. Both homes also have access to this wooded area. Are these homes vacant? Are there any other areas in and around Welles Lane where a person could access the wooded area without being observed?

 

[Inthedetails]

You may be right, but the OJ case is legendary transcends time and has been on as a TV movie recently, and both attorney and JD are of the age to recognize the similarities. I instantly thought of the OJ case when the divorce filings became known with the FD temper and the JD fear of him, and the judge not recognizing the potential danger JD was in... I thought the glove was just to show he always uses a glove, but a subtle reference to an acquittal would be clever. "If it fits you must acquit."
I don't think NP is that clever, definitely setting up "normalcy routines" to justify garbage dumping with some possible glove scenario as evidence....

Honestly, I think he's wearing the glove because he's not used to manual labor and his skin hurts using the broom. He's preventing a blister. Plus...this is all part of the circus show anyway.

FWIW, jmo.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

You may be right, but the OJ case is legendary transcends time and has been on as a TV movie recently, and both attorney and JD are of the age to recognize the similarities. I instantly thought of the OJ case when the divorce filings became known with the FD temper and the JD fear of him, and the judge not recognizing the potential danger JD was in... I thought the glove was just to show he always uses a glove, but a subtle reference to an acquittal would be clever. "If it fits you must acquit."
I don't think NP is that clever, definitely setting up "normalcy routines" to justify garbage dumping with some possible glove scenario as evidence....

MOO, but I can't see a criminal defense attorney actively seeking out to have parallels drawn between his client and a man who it's pretty much accepted murdered his former spouse and another person - regardless of the outcome of the criminal trial. I don't think there's anything clever about it. My opinion is that too much is being made of him wearing a glove while sweeping.

 

[oviedo]

https://www.jud2.ct.gov/crdockets/C...ding&Key=2555ffa9-35b0-4499-8d7c-5947cd66548f

Here is a docket but I don't see any motions yet - will keep looking seems like the MSM are just screen shooting a page or so.

 

[MsBetsy]

If anyone has the full motion from NP I'd like to read it. In the meantime, I did some research. I couldn't find a super direct code section but there are some code sections I found involving trying to seek the return of evidence.

One applies mostly to victims of crime whose property was stolen or taken and used by another in the omission of a crime. The section talks mostly about stolen property but there are some key phrases in that section that may be important here as there may be case law building upon those ideas or they may reflect general principles about seized property in CT. There is also a portion that seems to more directly apply.

One is that stolen property must be returned to the owner upon request unless "good cause" can be shown for its retention and then it can be held for a period determined by the court.

There's also a part in which it states that other property seized that was not stolen from a victim (and was not drugs or other contraband) will be returned to the owner at the end of the criminal case. Which is typical and important here:

Connecticut General Statutes Title 54. Criminal Procedure § 54-36a. Definitions. Inventory. Return of stolen property. Disposition of other seized property. Return of compliance

(c) Unless such seized property is stolen property and is ordered returned pursuant to subsection (b) of this section or unless such seized property is adjudicated a nuisance in accordance with section 54-33g , or unless the court finds that such property shall be forfeited or is contraband, or finds that such property is a controlled drug, a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia as defined in subdivision (8), (9) or (20) of section 21a-240 , it shall, at the final disposition of the criminal action or as soon thereafter as is practical, or, if there is no criminal action, at any time upon motion of the prosecuting official of such court, order the return of such property to its owner within six months upon proper claim therefor. (Emphasis by me).
Connecticut General Statutes Title 54. Criminal Procedure § 54-36a | FindLaw

The other code section is about "unlawfully obtained" property. That one discusses how one can move to seek the return and suppression of evidence unlawfully obtained - no warrant or a lack of sufficient probable cause, e.g.- so the key word there in looking at is probable cause:

"A person aggrieved by search and seizure may move the court which has jurisdiction of such person’s case...on the ground that:...there was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued".
» Connecticut General Statutes 54-33f – Motion for return of unlawfully seized property and suppression as evidenceLawServer

Taken together, and without benefit of reading his actual motion (and also by considering due process laws regarding evidence in other states), I believe that NP is seeking to force the issue as to whether there is actual probable cause to seize the property (which may give him an idea as to its evidentiary value) and good cause to retain it.

He is doing every last thing he can to fight the state.

I thought he was trying to say that since the items were not "contraband" his client should be entitled to have it back.
LE has never said it was contraband, it is just evidence, so I'm assuming the lawyer is asking what the probable cause is for the warrant?
Does LE have to explain that to him if it was already approved by a judge?
Is that what his problem is?
Is the judges approval of the warrant not enough?
What more does he need? Is he just playing dumb?

 

[Southernsnooper]

I don't like this attorney but I respect his abilities and I have no doubt he can easily handle both at once, as can most high profile criminal defense firms. He seems to me to be a workaholic who absolutely loves his job.

So much that he dines with his client on weekends!

 

[Kapua]

He’s saying that there’s not going to be a trial for tampering, and then a trial for murder.

The tampering charge will be on top of a future murder charge, and he’ll stand trial for both at the same time.

So you’ll have a murder count, a tampering count, and whatever else.

Littering.

 

[sds71]

This is an older suit against Fore Group
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=15813717

 

[spaz1959]

Honestly, I think he's wearing the glove because he's not used to manual labor and his skin hurts using the broom. He's preventing a blister. Plus...this is all part of the circus show anyway.
OK this may be so out there. Couldn't the glove on one particular hand show dominance of that hand? Not sure in what way that would be important. Was FD using one hand over another when he was dumping garbage bags. Could it be NP intentionally drawing attention to that one hand of FD? Maybe FD tossed the other glove in garbage bag, cause he wore while killing JD?
FWIW, jmo.

 

[spaz1959]

Sorry my above reply got mixed in with In the Details quote. Apologies.

 

[BaileeRyce]

Mods, please forgive me if this question is considered O/T

@gitana1 , How important is it for 1) a client to be honest with their lawyer(s), and 2) a lawyer(s) to believe in their client? especially in a case such as this?

I understand that most lawyers would defend their client against any charges that are brought against them and that if a lawyer believes that a client is actually guilty, he would not take the case but, then you have NP...

Thank you in advance

Bailee