Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #17

[BellaVita]

IMO if her lawyer had not vigorously represented JD, FD would have trampled all over her rights. There can be no doubt FD should never have been given custody of those children. They were entitled to receive financial support from their father and it was his moral obligation to pay it. I do not think JD or her lawyer did a single thing wrong in standing up to FD. He murdered his wife because he is a malignant narcissist, who was going to "win" at any cost That is 100% on him..

I also believe 100% the murder is all on him and not the fault of anyone else. However, her rights were already trampled on except for in the area of custody. Track record of FD shows he doesn't believe in moral obligations. His financial situation doesn't seem very good. Not sure what she could get out of him. IMO.

 

[afitzy]

Police can seize a phone without a warrant, but must obtain a court order to search it, which is precisely what LE did in this case. This was a good search. Funny thing about NP's claim, though. He has been saying the call on that phone to Greece the morning JD disappeared establishes FD's innocence. If the contents of those calls are so favorable to NP's client why is he trying to suppress the evidence found on the phone? Defendants typically do not try to suppress evidence that is favorable to their case.

I would have to go back to the Pattis patter on the Greece call but perhaps it was done over Skype or internet phone and not the cell phone?

I agree with you that Pattis even in his current mode of inconsistent and flat out wrong statements wouldn't ask for the phone to be excluded if it contained FD 'alibi' call IMO.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

Jennifer Dulos disappearance: 3 CT cases where suspicion also fell on husband
*The most obvious parallel to the Dulos case — with divergent outcomes — is that of Durst and Crafts, with the absence of a body found thus far.
*In each of the cases, suspicion fell on the women’s spouses due to mainly circumstantial evidence — another similarity to the Dulos case.
*But investigators found that Connie Dabate’s Fitbit kept tracking her movements for about an hour after the time her husband said she was murdered. Her Facebook account also showed she had posted on her profile while at home nearly 45 minutes after her husband said she was killed
*wonder if Jen had a Fitbit

Interesting thought about the fitbit! Also curious about an apple watch! I see apple watches everywhere and wonder if JD had one. Wouldn't it give similar tracking info to the fitbit?

But your fitbit idea makes tons of sense too as she was a runner and the fitbit is a bit more compact I think? Many of the runners on a case involving a missing runner that I was following said they preferred devices other than the apple watch for running such as the fitbit and a couple of others.

Wouldn't it be fantastic if LE has GPS tracking and timeline data from a fitbit or other similar device! Gamechanger IMO!

 

[MsJosie]

Pattis again in yesterday's hearing brought up the issue of FD phone being taken and not returned by NCPD on the 25th. It sounds like Pattis plans to attempt to get the FD iPhoneX excluded and all fruits from the phone excluded as well.

Judge said he wouldn't comment on the issue and that No Case Norm has to send in a motion on the issue and Colangelo would have to prepare a response.

Language from arrest warrant on the FD phone. Could this be an issue for the State's case?

View attachment 197936

He wants the phone back so bad, just what is on the phone!?

 

[afitzy]

I also believe 100% the murder is all on him and not the fault of anyone else. However, her rights were already trampled on except for in the area of custody. Track record of FD shows he doesn't believe in moral obligations. His financial situation doesn't seem very good. Not sure what she could get out of him. IMO.

Agree with you but I don't think JD wanted anything from FD other than custody BUT she also didn't want to be in the position of supporting him for the remainder of his life either, so she fought hard for what she wanted IMO.

Effectively FD was a kept man/gigolo with a sham job building houses supported by FIL money.

Sure he built houses and sold them for some profit but his income wasn't anywhere near being able to maintain the lifestyle they maintained on JD income and allow him to be on the road doing his thing 10 days out of the month for any period of time during the year.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

He wants the phone back so bad, just what is on the phone!?

IDK. But I don't think this coming motion from Pattis is really about the phone being returned to FD. Sure Doofus could have been dumb enough to not back up his iPhone and so needs his contacts, but I don't for a second believe that this is what this drama is all about.

What Pattis is trying to do is to exclude from the upcoming criminal case for tampering/hindering ALL that is on the FD iPhoneX and anything that LE might have learned from their investigation of the phone (fruits of the search I believe is the term).

Playing out this Pattis farce would mean that the cell phone data in the arrest warrant where the cell phone data was used along with physical view of FD and MT going down Albany avenue would be excluded from the case and the jury couldn't hear the information. I'm not certain that the CCTV would/could be considered fruits from the cell phone but I guess seeing Pattis in action that this is sadly where this argument is headed. Need a legal peep to opine on issue of what all would/could be entailed in the definition of 'fruits' here as that is above my pay grade! Could/Would this include the bag contents on Albany? Hope not!

Hope NCPD and State have this buttoned up. The arrest warrant sequence seemed clear on the face of it that the phone was taken as the belief existed that a crime had been committed and that the warrant was received to download the data. But I am sure this will turn out to be a bitter battle and contentious hearing in Court unfortunately. My guess is that Pattis is back on this phone issue because FD alibi has gone up in smoke so what better way to hobble a circumstantial case than do what he is doing.

No Case Norm was quite clear that his goal is to make sure that murder charges are never brought. Seems like this phone exclusion/fruits motion is the first step in his plan.

Hope the State prevails but this is going to be a rough ride IMO!

Huge MOO

 

[Tink56]

I would have to go back to the Pattis patter on the Greece call but perhaps it was done over Skype or internet phone and not the cell phone?

I agree with you that Pattis even in his current mode of inconsistent and flat out wrong statements wouldn't ask for the phone to be excluded if it contained FD 'alibi' call IMO.

MOO

Wasn't there some grand statement early on that FD's "alibi" was flying in from Greece to "prove" FD had been talking to him/her.

NP never mentioned that "witness" again, if I remember correctly.

 

[Jmoose]

He wants the phone back so bad, just what is on the phone!?

His defense team wants to verify everything he has on it, so they can make up some sort of justification for whatever is on there that looks bad. At least, that is the logical reason; I wonder if there is any other reason?

 

[afitzy]

My bet is that this 'alibi' was sitting directly behind FD on camera this week in court and to whom the State referred in their comments about family members being used to contact children in contravention of FD no contact order. Purely speculation on my part.

The other 'Greek Connection' that we have talked about on here before was the FORE website webmaster that is from Greece. Would make total sense that you might be on a phone call asking your webmaster to make changes to the site etc. Does anyone recall what we know about this webmaster and connection to FD? Is this company any relation to FD?

Huge MOO!

 

[Jmoose]

Agree with you but I don't think JD wanted anything from FD other than custody BUT she also didn't want to be in the position of supporting him for the remainder of his life either, so she fought hard for what she wanted IMO.

Effectively FD was a kept man/gigolo with a sham job building houses supported by FIL money.

Sure he built houses and sold them for some profit but his income wasn't anywhere near being able to maintain the lifestyle they maintained on JD income and allow him to be on the road doing his thing 10 days out of the month for any period of time during the year.

MOO

And he didn’t literally build them; he had to pay people to do everything but buy the lot with his fil’s money and make the deal. He couldn’t figure out how to accurately estimate the cost, and that was becoming a problem for him-at least one buyer objected to cost overruns on the house that was built for him. It isn’t supposed to work that way. That word has obviously gotten around. I don’t think he made as much on those houses, in spite of their costs, as it appeared by his lifestyle.

 

[Curious in CT]

You only have to post the bond as security for skipping town basically. So you pay the premium % to bonding co., and they post the bond and if you do try to flee, the court would call on the bond for the $ and you would then owe the bonding company $500k. It’s a little like insurance but not quite. It’s called suretyship in the law. Bottom line is he only pays the full amount if he fails to show up for a hearing etc.

He's failed to show up for family court (I believe) matters. Too bad there (apparently) isn't a blanket penalty, where you need to pay up for no showing on ANY appearances.

 

[Ruminations]

He wants the phone back so bad, just what is on the phone!?

My theory is Dulos and Pattis need the phone to see what it contains so they can check that the “perfectly reasonable” explanations for things like having bags of trash stained with Jennifer’s blood 70 miles away from the scene of a violent attack on her are not contradicted by evidence LE has. Of course, simply explaining from memory would work fine if one were planning on telling the truth...

ETA: or, “What Jmoose said!”

 

[Curious in CT]

Excellent point, @Chicago54 : he is saying he knew he would be looked at, WHILE he was planning the murder. Every step he made took that into consideration.
However, I don't recall reading anywhere that he arrived at NCPD in an "anguished" state. Please share if you can recall where you read/heard that.

MOO
Like most of you, if not all, I believe FD planned his attack on JD. I also believe he is meticulous, charming, intelligent and devious. I’ve said before & I’ll say it again, the answers we are seeking are in the moves FD has made vs the ones he has not.

From his calculated positioning of his phone during the day of the attack, through the dumping of the bags and the still altered license plates, until he walked into that police station, every single solitary move was planned and has a meaning. Once JD was known to be missing, FD HAD to talk to the authorities. Normal decency required his ‘concern and attention’ to the seriousness of the situation. He may have been going through a contentious divorce with JD, but she still was the mother of his children. To not meet with those looking for her during those urgent first moments would have made him look bad publicly, like a callous “monster”- or even guilty. So, FD mimicked the proper emotion and movements he knew were required of him. But IMO, he also used the moment for part of his meticulously calculated plan.

Remember FD’s little kitchen interview? (Now stick with me here, I’m going to push the envelope on how many layers of deviousness and pre-planning we can believe.) FD flat out told everyone, that he KNEW he would be a suspect in JDs disappearance. But don’t forget, we are analyzing the situation with the ‘given’ that FD killed JD. So when he says that, he is saying he knew he would be looked at, WHILE he was planning the murder. Every step he made took that into consideration. Now back to the visit to the Police Station. Here’s how he used that moment for HIS plan: yes, it fulfilled his need to look like a concerned dad, but it also gave him time to screw up LE and any future arrest and court case. When he went to the meeting, he TOOK his phone with him, he GAVE it to them. He knew darn well they were not going to hand it back to him. He was sure to ask for it back before he left, again knowing they weren’t going to give it back, so later he could claim, as NP put it, the police “stole” it. All I have to say is Appeal, appeal, appeal. Or at the very least, all evidence from it, or leading from evidence found on it-thrown out. Very telling is the fact , as the warrant notes, FD did not cooperate with the investigation. He only went to the police department to fulfill his plan; he looked like an anguished dad and he set the grounds for evidence to be thrown out and , if needed, an appeal.
Keep in mind, as you consider my meandering flow chart of backwards steps, it has now come to light, FDs closest buddy during this time of planning, was an attorney. ( no offense to all you other great attorneys out there!!)
MOO MOO

 

[NWLady]

IDK. But I don't think this coming motion from Pattis is really about the phone being returned to FD. Sure Doofus could have been dumb enough to not back up his iPhone and so needs his contacts, but I don't for a second believe that this is what this drama is all about.

What Pattis is trying to do is to exclude from the upcoming criminal case for tampering/hindering ALL that is on the FD iPhoneX and anything that LE might have learned from their investigation of the phone (fruits of the search I believe is the term).

Playing out this Pattis farce would mean that the cell phone data in the arrest warrant where the cell phone data was used along with physical view of FD and MT going down Albany avenue would be excluded from the case and the jury couldn't hear the information. I'm not certain that the CCTV would/could be considered fruits from the cell phone but I guess seeing Pattis in action that this is sadly where this argument is headed. Need a legal peep to opine on issue of what all would/could be entailed in the definition of 'fruits' here as that is above my pay grade! Could/Would this include the bag contents on Albany? Hope not!

Hope NCPD and State have this buttoned up. The arrest warrant sequence seemed clear on the face of it that the phone was taken as the belief existed that a crime had been committed and that the warrant was received to download the data. But I am sure this will turn out to be a bitter battle and contentious hearing in Court unfortunately. My guess is that Pattis is back on this phone issue because FD alibi has gone up in smoke so what better way to hobble a circumstantial case than do what he is doing.

No Case Norm was quite clear that his goal is to make sure that murder charges are never brought. Seems like this phone exclusion/fruits motion is the first step in his plan.

Hope the State prevails but this is going to be a rough ride IMO!

Huge MOO

BBM -

I am no expert but I think LE tracked his movements to Albany based on phone pings, phone movements etc (all of course without the phone in LE's hands obviously), so I'm not sure that anything regarding placing FD and MT to Albany could be thrown out even if other things from the phone could be? JMO

 

[CTGrammy]

I also believe 100% the murder is all on him and not the fault of anyone else. However, her rights were already trampled on except for in the area of custody. Track record of FD shows he doesn't believe in moral obligations. His financial situation doesn't seem very good. Not sure what she could get out of him. IMO.

MOO MOO MOO

JD was Not trying to get Anything, Monetarily from FD.

It is Standard Procedure in Family Court, for whomever is currently providing for the family health insurance, to continue to do so through the end of the divorce as Court Ordered.

JD was Using the fact that FD stopped paying the insurance premiums, as Evidence in her quest to gain full custody of the children.

It was Evidence against FD, ONLY.

JD did Not want FD's money, regardless of whether he had any money.

JD had her Own money. JD did Not Need any money from FD.

JD just wanted to get the children away from this guy who was Delusional (this word is in court documents) and who wanted them all to live as one big happy family with MT and her daughter.

Really???

JD was just trying to keep her 5 beautiful children and if FD had any kind of physical custody, JD would never see her children again. As FD threatened on more than one occasion.

IMO, JD did not even ask for child support.

She just wanted her children. It is just that simple.

Just because NP decides to accuse JD of taking HER money out of a joint account, does not mean that it actually happened.

Although, SHE was Definitely Entitled to that money if she did take the money out.

It was HER money and HER name was also on the account or how else would she have been able to take the money.

Depending on when JD would receive, in whole or in part, the $400,000 income per year from HER trust fund, I am sure that at least some of HER money was in the account and it was HER's to take when she left.

IMO, IF she took the money, she just took what was HERS and not a penny more.

MOO MOO MOO

 

[Curious in CT]

@afitzy and all: Can we all please refer to FD as Doofus, going forward?

IDK. But I don't think this coming motion from Pattis is really about the phone being returned to FD. Sure Doofus could have been dumb enough to not back up his iPhone and so needs his contacts, but I don't for a second believe that this is what this drama is all about.

What Pattis is trying to do is to exclude from the upcoming criminal case for tampering/hindering ALL that is on the FD iPhoneX and anything that LE might have learned from their investigation of the phone (fruits of the search I believe is the term).

Playing out this Pattis farce would mean that the cell phone data in the arrest warrant where the cell phone data was used along with physical view of FD and MT going down Albany avenue would be excluded from the case and the jury couldn't hear the information. I'm not certain that the CCTV would/could be considered fruits from the cell phone but I guess seeing Pattis in action that this is sadly where this argument is headed. Need a legal peep to opine on issue of what all would/could be entailed in the definition of 'fruits' here as that is above my pay grade! Could/Would this include the bag contents on Albany? Hope not!

Hope NCPD and State have this buttoned up. The arrest warrant sequence seemed clear on the face of it that the phone was taken as the belief existed that a crime had been committed and that the warrant was received to download the data. But I am sure this will turn out to be a bitter battle and contentious hearing in Court unfortunately. My guess is that Pattis is back on this phone issue because FD alibi has gone up in smoke so what better way to hobble a circumstantial case than do what he is doing.

No Case Norm was quite clear that his goal is to make sure that murder charges are never brought. Seems like this phone exclusion/fruits motion is the first step in his plan.

Hope the State prevails but this is going to be a rough ride IMO!

Huge MOO

 

[CTGrammy]

IDK. But I don't think this coming motion from Pattis is really about the phone being returned to FD. Sure Doofus could have been dumb enough to not back up his iPhone and so needs his contacts, but I don't for a second believe that this is what this drama is all about.

What Pattis is trying to do is to exclude from the upcoming criminal case for tampering/hindering ALL that is on the FD iPhoneX and anything that LE might have learned from their investigation of the phone (fruits of the search I believe is the term).

Playing out this Pattis farce would mean that the cell phone data in the arrest warrant where the cell phone data was used along with physical view of FD and MT going down Albany avenue would be excluded from the case and the jury couldn't hear the information. I'm not certain that the CCTV would/could be considered fruits from the cell phone but I guess seeing Pattis in action that this is sadly where this argument is headed. Need a legal peep to opine on issue of what all would/could be entailed in the definition of 'fruits' here as that is above my pay grade! Could/Would this include the bag contents on Albany? Hope not!

Hope NCPD and State have this buttoned up. The arrest warrant sequence seemed clear on the face of it that the phone was taken as the belief existed that a crime had been committed and that the warrant was received to download the data. But I am sure this will turn out to be a bitter battle and contentious hearing in Court unfortunately. My guess is that Pattis is back on this phone issue because FD alibi has gone up in smoke so what better way to hobble a circumstantial case than do what he is doing.

No Case Norm was quite clear that his goal is to make sure that murder charges are never brought. Seems like this phone exclusion/fruits motion is the first step in his plan.

Hope the State prevails but this is going to be a rough ride IMO!

Huge MOO

However, it does not matter if LE was able to get the tracking from the phone itself.

LE would have gotten this information from the Cell Phone Company and would have had a warrant to do so.

So, if the only info gleaned from the cell phone was the tracking, then no issue if the cell phone info is not admissible in court, because LE Was able to get info from the Cell Phone Company.

With that being said, FD Willingly handed his phone over with his attorney present.

LE has every Legal right to keep the phone with the suspicion it was used in the commission of a crime.

LE has been meticulously investigating this crime with a fine tooth comb and there is no way that they gained any information from this cell phone without a Warrant.

MOO MOO and MOO

 

[Curious in CT]

The only person listed on LI has on his profile:

XXXX (deleted by me) started his career in building materials industry having experience in various marketing and sales activities in domestic and world markets.
In 1998 following his university degrees decided to move in the digital market where he founded the first interactive website where users could experience real time weather conditions through web cameras in Greek ski centers.

One project (from 2000) cited is this: Eimastegynaikes.GR

You guys can see the web dev firm's site at the link at the bottom of the Fore Group pages.

I hope this all is ok with WS terms! Mods keep us honest.

My bet is that this 'alibi' was sitting directly behind FD on camera this week in court and to whom the State referred in their comments about family members being used to contact children in contravention of FD no contact order. Purely speculation on my part.

The other 'Greek Connection' that we have talked about on here before was the FORE website webmaster that is from Greece. Would make total sense that you might be on a phone call asking your webmaster to make changes to the site etc. Does anyone recall what we know about this webmaster and connection to FD? Is this company any relation to FD?

Huge MOO!

 

[Curious in CT]

I am going to tag onto my previous post to mention that it's interesting that it appears that Doofus has in his web dev team an individual who is likely facile in installing camera/monitoring systems.

....founded the first interactive website where users could experience real time weather conditions through web cameras in Greek ski centers.

The only person listed on LI has on his profile:

XXXX (deleted by me) started his career in building materials industry having experience in various marketing and sales activities in domestic and world markets.
In 1998 following his university degrees decided to move in the digital market where he founded the first interactive website where users could experience real time weather conditions through web cameras in Greek ski centers.

One project (from 2000) cited is this: Eimastegynaikes.GR

You guys can see the web dev firm's site at the link at the bottom of the Fore Group pages.

I hope this all is ok with WS terms! Mods keep us honest.

 

[CTGrammy]

Wasn't there some grand statement early on that FD's "alibi" was flying in from Greece to "prove" FD had been talking to him/her.

NP never mentioned that "witness" again, if I remember correctly.

Yes, that was said.

However, just because a call came to his cell or his home phone, does not mean that FD was with either of those phones.

Someone could have been handy and just picked up the home phone when Greece called and just set the phone down while still connected.

Someone could say they were on the phone with FD, but how can the caller testify to the location of FD at the time of the call.

Calls to the home phone can be forwarded to a cell phone.

MOO