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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MsBetsy said:
Even more reason to want to be rid of her!
They had all the custody and financial issues yet to be worked out in court, and it did not seem to be going his way so far.

It may have worked out in his favor that they were still legally married at the time of her death.

If he had not murdered her, that is.
Imo
Click to expand...
I’m waiting for him to file a notice of voluntary dismissal - although that would indicate she is deceased IMO so I guess the case languishes in limbo??
 
oviedo said:
Well that’s a statement IMO - the first of many slights coming her way I think
ETA I posted to the media thread - thank you
Click to expand...
I feel badly for MT’s daughter. I’m sure that her grandparents/other family were there for her. Maybe that served as a wake-up call for MT and should think long and hard about her choices going forward.
 
MsBetsy said:
It really does seem like it's all part of a game.
But even so, that the defense is asking for the evidence to be released to him still does not guarantee that the prosecution will give them the details they are looking for, does it?

If LE is not obligated to tell them any details about the investigation, what good does it do?

Doesn't the fact that the warrant was approved by a judge show probable cause? Or are they just fishing for information?
And if so, what information can the prosecution give to him that will help with the defense?
Click to expand...
We can expect Pattis to do and say anything that will keep him in the news.
Free advertising.
 
BaileeRyce said:
Innocent or guilty, it is their job to defend.. Duh, I forgot that part. :rolleyes: A criminal defense lawyer's job is to get no time or as little time as possible.

I guess it is just hard for me to wrap my head around wanting to defend someone that is guilty of a heinous crime.

Thank you for answering :)

MOO
Click to expand...

True...but it's a defense attorney's job to make the prosecution prove its case.
 
gitana1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Brain dead .TLDR. Is this a good or bad thing? Cliff notes will suffice.
 
Southernsnooper said:
I feel badly for MT’s daughter. I’m sure that her grandparents/other family were there for her. Maybe that served as a wake-up call for MT and should think long and hard about her choices going forward.
Click to expand...
I do as well -the children of these murdering people suffer the most not that I think she is a killer but I do think she is involved deeply JMO they should consider the worst alternative and then ask themselves is it worth it ? She could have skipped the Albany trash dump but she chose to go with him IMO
 
gitana1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay.I did read this and it all makes sense.
You are the bestest, IMO.
 
Southernsnooper said:
Police provide an update article...
State Police Provide Update on Dulos Investigation
Click to expand...

Good article.

One thing that gets me excited is the thought of LE's computer forensics technicians seeing everything FD has searched and/or said on the Internet in the past few years.

I do hope he thought deleting files actually made them go away when we know it just opens up the space for re-use. There has to be incriminating stuff hidden on those hard drives.

Reading about FD continuing to demand visitation with his children I just want to scream, "Spattering a mom's blood all over the garage, then carrying the crime scene clean-up sponges out for disposal just kind of gets in the way of designating fun time with the kiddos." Give me a break!
 
Last edited:
MsBetsy said:
Even more reason to want to be rid of her!
They had all the custody and financial issues yet to be worked out in court, and it did not seem to be going his way so far.

It may have worked out in his favor that they were still legally married at the time of her death.

If he had not murdered her, that is.
Imo
Click to expand...

Does FD have an insurance policy on Jennifer's life with him as beneficiary? (Sorry if this has been answered.) If he does that will certainly be another check mark for guilt.
 
Southernsnooper said:
I feel badly for MT’s daughter. I’m sure that her grandparents/other family were there for her. Maybe that served as a wake-up call for MT and should think long and hard about her choices going forward.
Click to expand...

I wonder if this announcement was made to keep the press away from the ceremony.

Since schools are all about concern for their students' happiness, I'll bet MT was there, perhaps slightly disguised.

I almost hope she was there for her daughter's sake. This little girl is in the middle of a nightmare of her mother's making starting with moving her in with FD.
 
Fore Group Liens

https://www.concord-sots.ct.gov/CONCORD/online?sn=InquiryServlet&eid=199
https://www.concord-sots.ct.gov/CONCORD/online?sn=InquiryServlet&eid=199
UCC Inquiry

Lien List
Debtor Name: FORE GROUP LLC
Lien Number Lien Type Lapse Date/Time
0002961733 OFS Oct 16, 2018
0003028637 OFS Nov 21, 2019
0003078135 OFS Sep 22, 2020
0003119403 OFS May 09, 2021
0003138060 OFS Aug 26, 2021
0003195169 OFS Jul 31, 2022
0003277094 OFS Nov 27, 2023
000329778
Number Lien Type Lapse Date
0003297784 OFS Apr 03, 2024
Filing Number Filing Date/Time Filing Type Microfilm Volume Start Page
0003297784 Apr 03, 2019 ORIG FIN STMT 00114 0336
 
MemPat said:
I wonder if this announcement was made to keep the press away from the ceremony.

Since schools are all about concern for their students' happiness, I'll bet MT was there, perhaps slightly disguised.

I almost hope she was there for her daughter's sake. This little girl is in the middle of a nightmare of her mother's making starting with moving her in with FD.
Click to expand...

That is entirely possible, and quite compassionate.

jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 52 more.
Total: 2,236 (members: 53, guests: 2,183)

Online statistics

Members online
53
Guests online
2,183
Total visitors
2,236
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,301
Messages
18,138,593
Members
231,318
Latest member
ioprgee
Back
Top