Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #18

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
A good friend of mine is currently embroiled in a lawsuit brought by her brother over their mother's property. Brother is greedy and feels entitled. (He says "I'm the oldest son!")
My friend is not affluent and in her case, this is about property not custody. However, her attorney advised her to settle, otherwise he would drag this out in the courts and it would cost her more in attorney fees. I told her to take her attorney's advice, even though morally, she is in the right. (The brother already has three acres in a desirable area of O'ahu). So I agree with you. Sometimes it's better to cut your losses. I always say, you can make more money.

I understand the urge to fight for what your friend knows she is entitled to-did her mom have a will that specifically states what the disposition of her property should be? Even if she had a will, her brother could make fighting for equity very expensive. I have a friend in a similar situation; it is costly doing battle with people like your friend’s brother, and my friend’s brother. I would have a hard time walking away, because I like to fight, and am a fan of equitable distribution...but your friend’s sanity has to be worth something. I hope your friend can find her peace with this.
 
Morning! I catch up every morning, and the whole "fruit" thing started to get me nervous. I started googling about police taking my phone, etc. This was one of the answers I found.
A recent answer from a lawyer states:

Al Rossi, former Criminal Defense Lawyer, Washington State, (1983-2016)
Answered Mar 8, 2019 · Author has 258 answers and 19.9k answer views


There are two issues: the seizure of the phone and the search of the phone’s contents.
First, the physical seizure of the phone. Unless you voluntarily give the police your phone, if they don’t have a search warrant allowing them to seize it, with the exceptional of unusual circumstances, the police generally seize cell phones upon the arrest of the defendant.


As far as a search of the contents on the phone, unless the defendant consents, they must convince a magistrate that the phone is likely to contain either contraband (like child *advertiser censored*), or evidence of crime (financial records of drug deals, recipes for the manufacturers of methamphetamine). If the magistrate finds probable cause, he will issue the search warrant. If not, the defendant phone back eventually, examined. (Unless the phone itself was stolen.
The phone will generally be released, in any case, once the case is finished one way or another.



I'm pretty positive FD gave the phone willingly, then LE also got search warrants for all the other particulars. Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/phone-png.197936/


Here's where the lawyers answer is.
https://www.quora.com/How-long-can-the-police-keep-your-phone-without-a-warrant-for-it

We know by now NP is gonna say and file anything to make it appear that the big bad police and the public are doin his client wrong.

This is my opinion and the lawyer's opinion - whom I have no association with.
I'm nothing lawyerish at all, either.
 
Last edited:
I actually got a laugh contrasting how skillfully it was written with the fact it was his sister.

Me, too-pretending like his sister was an actual colleague that he was lauding his association with and not just a sibling kind of reminded me about the writeup of the guest house he did for his in-laws, pretending like he only knew them from the business association he had with them.
 
Morning! I catch up every morning, and the whole "fruit" thing started to get me nervous. I started googling about police taking my phone, etc. This was one of the answers I found.
A recent answer from a lawyer states:

Al Rossi, former Criminal Defense Lawyer, Washington State, (1983-2016)
Answered Mar 8, 2019 · Author has 258 answers and 19.9k answer views

There are two issues: the seizure of the phone and the search of the phone’s contents.

First, the physical seizure of the phone. Unless you voluntarily give the police your phone, if they don’t have a search warrant allowing them to seize it, with the exceptional of unusual circumstances, the police generally seize cell phones upon the arrest of the defendant.

As far as a search of the contents on the phone, unless the defendant consents, they must convince a magistrate that the phone is likely to contain either contraband (like child *advertiser censored*), or evidence of crime (financial records of drug deals, recipes for the manufacturers of methamphetamine). If the magistrate finds probable cause, he will issue the search warrant. If not, the defendant phone back eventually, examined. (Unless the phone itself was stolen.

The phone will generally be released, in any case, once the case is finished one way or another.



I'm pretty positive FD gave his cell phone willingly. (?) This is all just my opinion, the lawyers opinion and stuff I found while perusing the online search. I'm no lawyer, either - or purport to be anything "lawyerish".
https://www.quora.com/How-long-can-the-police-keep-your-phone-without-a-warrant-for-it[/QUOTE
 
Last edited:
Me, too-pretending like his sister was an actual colleague that he was lauding his association with and not just a sibling kind of reminded me about the writeup of the guest house he did for his in-laws, pretending like he only knew them from the business association he had with them.
Love it!
 
There is a woman on LinkedIn named Rena in Greece who is shown as a Senior Architect Consultant at the Fore Group. IMO she bears a resemblance to the woman in court. If you go to www.linkedin.com and search Rena Fore Group Greece she will pop up.

Interesting...her picture no longer there on linkedin...
 
WOW!.. @Fitzy The picture you found is the woman who was at the hearing....I'm shocked.

This, however, is the picture I found that was on the linked-in resume for Rena Kyrimi:
0

Big difference...eh? This seems more in line with a 65-66 year-old-woman, IMO.

Maybe the photo you found is her daughter???? Perhaps Greeks name their children after themselves???? Or, some her fortune went to extensive plastic surgery. Beats me...
I believe that is picture of FD/Rena mother, the one that was run over by the nanny at 585 Deerfield. Just a guess. Not sure. MOO
 
Just wanted to put this interview article with links to the Channel 4 interview into this thread.

These interviews have the tendency to be deleted by media outlets over time so suggest saving if you are interested. The clips have already been edited down.

Watched this again recently and for what its worth I think the defense will very much regret ever having agreed to FD doing this interview. But watching it again also shows how tightly edited this piece was as the editing frankly wasn't seemless IMO. I wonder if Pattis & Crew had edit rights over the content or what the deal was with Channel 4? Pattis I believe said that he "owed" the reporter for a prior favor and that is why he gave the interview to Channel 4.

Good to see that Pattis is looking to repay his past favors owed by offering up his client FD! MOO


Fotis Dulos: ‘The truth is going to come out’ in Jennifer Dulos disappearance
 
5 to 4 decision. I see it even differently.
Courts are to interpret law. Not make new law. (Latest trends, used to be courts would make all kinds of new laws.)
So here, 5 justices chose to ignore a law on the books and carve out an exception to the communications exception by ignoring the Communications law cited that was relied on in getting cell records. That gives government the authority to get info. in certain circumstances. Active criminal investigation being one of the exceptions.
Cell numbers were voluntarily disclosed. So not fruit of poison tree.
I’m sure there’s more to this case than what was written in the opinions. They effectively removed a tool LE needs to expedite info gathering in criminal activity. Why?
The Supreme Court determines whether a law is constitutional. This function is well-established, and is part of our constitutional system of government. It does not and has never attempted to "make all new kinds of laws". It has ruled that the 4th Amendment requires LE to get a warrant to search the contents of a phone, including prior location via "pings" which is precisely what was done here. It is not necessary to trash the Constitution to catch guilty folks.
 
Just wanted to put this interview article with links to the Channel 4 interview into this thread.

These interviews have the tendency to be deleted by media outlets over time so suggest saving if you are interested. The clips have already been edited down.

Watched this again recently and for what its worth I think the defense will very much regret ever having agreed to FD doing this interview. Pattis I believe said that he "owed" the reporter for a prior favor and that is why he gave the interview to Channel 4.

Good to see that Pattis is looking to repay his past favors owed by offering up his client FD! MOO


Fotis Dulos: ‘The truth is going to come out’ in Jennifer Dulos disappearance

The truth will come out? What does he mean-that JD is the bad one, not him? I hope the truth comes out...we know he did it. He hopes the truth never surfaces, because that puts his feet in the fire.
 
Greek connections seem to be emerging with connections to FD and FORE. The posted info about FD sister from LinkedIn writing the business plan for FORE and also working with the company since its inception was interesting as this connection was not discussed by FD himself so far as we have seen in the press or any of his online PR on FORE website. Why hide a female family connection and one with such solid credentials and impressive work track record?

As someone astutely pointed out in a previous post these greek connections could open up the possibilities for FD to siphon cash out of FORE over a period of time so that the company becomes no more than a financial shell. I wonder if we might see some of these greek connections interviewed by GF in the civil case too as to their role in FORE? If you look at the description of the work being done by FD sister for FORE, it appears on the surface that she was intimately involved with not only design work but operations and project management as well.

FORE could have just functioned as a hub or tool to send out money to various family related entities and individuals too? We don't know but I hope State and GF are all over this to understand where the money went that FD made as we know from Family Court documents that it wasn't spent on children or their welfare. We know MT was paid roughly $120,000/yr, is she still on the payroll or has she been terminated by FORE? Does FORE have any employees now or is all work done by contractors? Looks like FD wove a complicated web of folks around his operations so it will take time to untangle. I think everyone wants to know what MT knew and how involved she was in the financial aspects of FORE.

MOO
 
Greek connections seem to be emerging with connections to FD and FORE. The posted info about FD sister from LinkedIn writing the business plan for FORE and also working with the company since its inception was interesting as this connection was not discussed by FD himself so far as we have seen in the press or any of his online PR on FORE website. Why hide a female family connection and one with such solid credentials and impressive work track record?

As someone astutely pointed out in a previous post these greek connections could open up the possibilities for FD to siphon cash out of FORE over a period of time so that the company becomes no more than a financial shell. I wonder if we might see some of these greek connections interviewed by GF in the civil case too as to their role in FORE? If you look at the description of the work being done by FD sister for FORE, it appears on the surface that she was intimately involved with not only design work but operations and project management as well.

FORE could have just functioned as a hub or tool to send out money to various family related entities and individuals too? We don't know but I hope State and GF are all over this to understand where the money went that FD made as we know from Family Court documents that it wasn't spent on children or their welfare. We know MT was paid roughly $120,000/yr, is she still on the payroll or has she been terminated by FORE? Does FORE have any employees now or is all work done by contractors? Looks like FD wove a complicated web of folks around his operations so it will take time to untangle. I think everyone wants to know what MT knew and how involved she was in the financial aspects of FORE.

MOO

I am not confident that anybody will testify truthfully with regard to funny money issues. I think MT will take the 5th (because she will incriminate herself if she doesn’t), and so will everybody else who has any knowledge, because they will incriminate themselves otherwise. It’s disappointing, but at least we will know that there are some illegalities going on if they do. That doesn’t really help GF in her case, though.
 
The Supreme Court determines whether a law is constitutional. This function is well-established, and is part of our constitutional system of government. It does not and has never attempted to "make all new kinds of laws". It has ruled that the 4th Amendment requires LE to get a warrant to search the contents of a phone, including prior location via "pings" which is precisely what was done here. It is not necessary to trash the Constitution to catch guilty folks.
@oceancalling, Curious what you think about the warrant language vis a vis the phone?

Seems like LE had reason to believe based on evidence from Welles that FD phone might have evidence related to a crime based on the warrant language. IDK the standard police are held to in order to take a phone though? But the FD warrant was clear that NCPD/State Police then requested and received the proper warrant to access the phone.

On the surface it looks like NCPD followed the correct procedure.

I guess maybe I am not understanding Pattis saying that the phone was "taken" and "not returned" to FD. Pattis said in court that he has stmts from the FD atty that the phone was requested to be returned by the atty at the time.

Would the phone have to be returned if it was requested to be returned, in the event that NCPD had evidence in place suggesting the violent act had occurred at Welles? I'm thinking that State Police had luminol all over Welles by the time the phone situation happened. Would this suspicion from NCPD/State Police be enough to withhold the phone if atty asked for it to be returned? I also wonder if this exchange was all on video at NCPD too?
 
I am not confident that anybody will testify truthfully with regard to funny money issues. I think MT will take the 5th (because she will incriminate herself if she doesn’t), and so will everybody else who has any knowledge, because they will incriminate themselves otherwise. It’s disappointing, but at least we will know that there are some illegalities going on if they do. That doesn’t really help GF in her case, though.
Not my area of expertise but I think we learned from the Family Court that taking the 5th can result in adverse inference (think this is the term). Remember when FD took the 5th in Family Court? Judge Heller referred back to this choice as part of her decision to award custody to GF.

The civil case dragging on is frankly a bit of a mind boggler IMO. FD own books and records (such as they are) show a loan owing to FIL of roughly $1.7 million if I recall according to the civil case documents. We haven't seen any evidence to support the FD contention that the FIL loans represented a 'gift' other than statements made by FD (under the legal guidance of then atty KM). I guess anyone can say anything at any time but at a certain point evidence will be required by the court. FIL was a savvy business person and it makes no sense that the longstanding practice of lending money, building house and repaying loans would have 'suddenly' converted to a gifting scenario IMO. Why do this and especially at a time when the cat was out of the bag that the marriage was failing and JD no doubt had possiblity spoken to her mother and father about the breakdown and her plans to leave? It seems that if the FIL knew that the marriage was doomed and had his doubts about his SIL that instead of gifting the money he would have been tightening the repayment schedule. But perhaps his illness precluded this action IDK but the entire 'gift' concept seems to be a work of fiction created by KM and FD to push off the inevitable repayment of loans and possibly even take advantage of FIL during a time of illness, which if true is positively diabolically evil IMO.

IMO this all is just stonewalling/delay by FD to do whatever he is planning to do or delay the fact that there is no money in FORE etc. Meanwhile he is just issuing a legal dare to GF to call anyone and everyone that has ever worked for FORE IMO. GF has a solid team so will no doubt take a hard look at the main possible suspects and institute legal action accordingly. IMO MT and FD sister have most to fear in this regard given both have intimate ties to FORE/FD.

So, we have MT on deck to be deposed and then FD. Seems likely that we might even see KM, FD sister, FD former employees and friends etc. This parade of depositions could be long and painful for all involved.

Wonder why FD would subject friends and family to this expense and personal stress? Why not simply settle and move on? We've already seen one trade creditor get a set aside for $26,250 and we know more trade creditors are lining up. Its all a mess but time is of the essence IMO as my guess is that there might not be much there for anyone at this point.

MOO MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
120
Guests online
2,118
Total visitors
2,238

Forum statistics

Threads
601,605
Messages
18,126,702
Members
231,104
Latest member
maxnum
Back
Top