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

[Curious in CT]

Randomly came across this other way of accessing the FivemakesSeven blog, while trying to figure out exactly when, where and how Doofus's dad died. I wonder if once his mom became a widow, sis passed along the "upkeep." No answers on my original question, but I do know many sleuthers have expressed interest in perusing JD's writings.

And five makes seven...

 

[Ruminations]

Even if the phone was seized, but not searched, he loses because probable cause to seize the phone existed. By all accounts, he surrendered the phone on his own volition, just as he went with his lawyer to the police station voluntarily. LE then properly obtained a court ordered warrant for its search.NP will not succeed in challenging either the surrender of the phone or its search IMO.

My thought is that if Pattis had had his chance to discuss this and most likely did so in Pretrial conference on Friday. Prosecutors were angry when spoke about the impounded items at trial as it was already discussed and ruled on.

What are the odds Pattis did not float the unfair search idea pretrial? Nearly zero, IMO. And if that went well, the headlines would be, “Judge agrees LE might have seized phone inappropriately.”

IMO, it went badly in court, so Pattis is playing it in the press. I am not paying it any attention or spending my energy second guessing LE.

MOO, MOO

 

[Bulldogs2]

View attachment 198084

And I think that guy was in the courtroom too

 

[Bulldogs2]

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:

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...

Yeah... the courtroom woman looked younger. But maybe the plastic surgery like you said

 

[tmar]

Regarding an earlier note someone made, I’ve always thought FD would have a FitBit. And JD, too. MOO.

Definitely.
Most people, interested in keeping fit, walking/running carry fitbits, to keep track of distances they travel.
There are ones that can be attached at the waist band, and are not visible.

 

[BellaVita]

I am sure I used to see her all the time on HNN/CNN during CA trial.

NOT HNN...HLN! Headline News, don't watch cable anymore!

 

[BellaVita]

UMMMMM.....I think I might know who the blonde woman in the court room was!
Catherine Crier???? That's my story and I'm sticking to it because it was annoying the heck out of me.

 

[oceancalling]

There is now a standard in MA that even for just seizure of a phone, there has to be probable cause that the phone is somehow related to the crime. It can't be taken just because people use their cell phones a lot and it probably has evidence of some sort.

To quote Afitzy "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". If that is what the language says, that is a very good point in favor of admissibility, IMO. And VERY smart of LE. Because the seizure and search of phones is an ever evolving thing right now. I wonder how fast LE was able to get location info from the phone itself, if at all. Were location services turned on at all times? Or only at 4JC for alibi purposes? What was gotten faster...phone company records or physical records from the phone itself? Was the tracking to Albany Ave a result of phone records from the cell carrier or the phone itself? If carrier records are what assisted in the Albany Ave tracking, it would still hurt to lose the results of what was found on the phone itself but if the Albany Ave investigation resulted from the physical phone search, it could be trouble. Either way, there will extended motions to toss. IMO.

There was probable cause for the search of the phone. The issue of whether the evidence found on that phone was lawfully obtained is a 4th Amendment issue.While some states have stricter state constitutional protections than those found in the United States Constitution, generally, the United States Supreme Court has the last say on whether evidence seized violates the 4th and is, thus, subject to suppression. Phones can be seized without a warrant (with some exceptions, of course). They cannot be searched without a warrant. Evidence seized from this phone IS coming in at trial IMO.

 

[oceancalling]

I read somewhere there are NP groupies

Hahaha. Reminds me of a certain well-known lawyer who used to pay for FB followers. But then, I understand Charlie Manson also had his '"admirers."

 

[BellaVita]

There was probable cause for the search of the phone. The issue of whether the evidence found on that phone was lawfully obtained is a 4th Amendment issue.While some states have stricter state constitutional protections than those found in the United States Constitution, generally, the United States Supreme Court has the last say on whether evidence seized violates the 4th and is, thus, subject to suppression. Phones can be seized without a warrant (with some exceptions, of course). They cannot be searched without a warrant. Evidence seized from this phone IS coming in at trial IMO.

I think you know what you are talking about! There will be a circus over it though. IMO.

 

[afitzy]

Oh my goodness....

I was attempting to update my informal list of Pattis patter today and came across this 'gem' of an article that I hadn't seen earlier about an 'exclusive' interview with No Case Norm. I had a good chuckle about the idea of any interview with Pattis being "exclusive" as he talks to anyone and everyone all the time with no discrimination and he even seemed willing to tackle a reporter after the last court appearance to get in front of their microphone to speak too IMO.

I'm going through this ridiculous exercise of tracking Pattis patter simply because I have never seen so many baseless theories tossed out in a manner that I think most would agree is fairly irresponsbile and so deeply shaming to a missing and now presumed dead victim.

Exclusive: Lawyer Norm Pattis says client Fotis Dulos' estranged and missing wife has a 'troubled past'

This 'exclusive' from FOX61 runs the gamut of victim shaming from No Case Norm where he discusses such gems as JD coming from 'troubled past', 'deeply troubled' to 'I think she had serious health issues'. All these statements were made by No Case Norm BTW with zero information to substantiate the claim. None. Zip. Nada and said with a straight face with zero shame IMO too! Can't find supporting information on any of it anywhere.

Seems more than a bit irresponsible to me? But, it continues.

No Case Norm then spins the tale that:

"Still, Pattis alleges that in the days leading up to her disappearance, Jennifer may have been the one trying to create "a center of gravity in New York" to relocate the children, too, even identifying potential doctors and dentists for her kids".

"She was not settled happily in New Cannan, intending to live there happily ever after," Pattis said".

Again, no info to support any of these claims that JD was unhappy in NC and was picking up sticks and moving to NYC with zero mention made that this most likely wouldn't be permitted until the divorce case had been settled.

Is Pattis trying to argue that FD was spun into a tower of rage such that he murdered his wife because she was threatening to move to NYC? We don't know because Pattis presents zero proof.

Reading through all this I wonder how many cases No Case Norm is trying here?!? Could Pattis be hallucinating or tripping and thinking aloud about possible theories for some of his other cases and forgotten he was speaking with FOX61 about FD? Nope. All this effort is being made on behalf of FD.

There are 2 co-defendants in this case but so far as I know Pattis just has responsibility for FD. But honestly he has presented enough theories 'de jour' to defend an entire cell block IMO. No wonder States Atty Colangelo is pursuing the gag order IMO. At this point IMO Pattis is a danger to his client with his gunshot approach in speaking with the press and there aren't words to explain what I think of the victim shaming/blaming going on here on an ongoing basis too.

So far I've counted 10 of what I'm calling 'major claims' by Pattis and frankly I'm going to give up even tracking the minor 'side show' issues such as Pattis claim in court last week that "there are many things I could have said but I haven't said so far and one includes JD taking money from FD accounts before her departure". Really? Family Court said FD provided $0 to support his children and provide for their welfare and Pattis has better information that JD took money from FD? By all means cough up the statements so we can see verification that FD has anything as he has been pleading poverty for 2 years and evading orders for disclosure in both Family Court and Civil Court.

Did No Case Norm not read the Family Court case documents or perhaps even task the intern to wander over to the court and take a look see? Nope. Pattis never lets the facts of anything stand in the way of making a derogotory statement about JD, never.

What is so facinating about all of this Pattis patter is that zero of it directly relates to his client FD. None.

I am so curious to see how No Case Norm plans to connect the dots in all this patter to then explain to a simple minded person like myself how his client FD and co-defendant MT were seen via Hartford City CCTV on Albany Ave in a Black Ford F-150 Raptor, stopping 30 times along the route to drop off the contents of black contractor bags. Perhaps FOX61 can get the "exclusive" on this story?

But no. Pattis is now attempting to get the FD cellphone data/contents surpressed and thinks that this will wave a magic wand over the entire Albany trip to make it disappear. Pattis is now done for the time being with victim shaming and he is moving on to shaming/blaming NCPD/State Police and LE in general with the supression motion IMO. I can't believe LE actually speaks to Pattis but according to him they do. I don't get it.

We are nearly 2 months into this sad and tragic tale and FD has zero alibi/alternative theory as Pattis likes to call it for the Albany trip with MT. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. So much for the rush to August trial, now Pattis is asking for the extra days over the weekend in order to file his motions as seen in this past weeks hearing. IMO the gag order can't come soon enough so perhaps Pattis & Crew can do some work to actually defend their client.

MOO MOO MOO

 

[afitzy]

And I think that guy was in the courtroom too

Yes, agree. They were both there. MOO

 

[CTGrammy]

Randomly came across this other way of accessing the FivemakesSeven blog, while trying to figure out exactly when, where and how Doofus's dad died. I wonder if once his mom became a widow, sis passed along the "upkeep." No answers on my original question, but I do know many sleuthers have expressed interest in perusing JD's writings.

And five makes seven...

Both of FD's parents were here with FD and wife #1.

Father died the same year FD married JD.

Mother died after second set of twins.

MOO

 

[Rivkah11]

What are the odds that the tampering/hindering never goes to trial? Who believes there will be a plea deal(s) or one flips on the other?

 

[BellaVita]

What are the odds that the tampering/hindering never goes to trial? Who believes there will be a plea deal(s) or one flips on the other?

I think it will go to trial the same time as the murder charges, IMO.

 

[Bulldogs2]

I actually got a laugh contrasting how skillfully it was written with the fact it was his sister.

I laughed out loud too. What was the first thing you learned about giving references for a job- not to give relatives. Just plain stupid.

 

[Bulldogs2]

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.

Someone on the google reviews of FORE wrote that the only good reviews were from friends/family

 

[BellaVita]

I laughed out loud too. What was the first thing you learned about giving references for a job- not to give relatives. Just plain stupid.

"Just plain stupid". You couldn't have expressed that any more eloquently. Really.

 

[Chicago54]

MOO Alexandros Dulos

MOO MOO. No. It’s a different family. Another Fotis if you can believe it. This Fotis’ father’s name was Petros.
This Fotis only has one sister.
https://www.myheritage.com/names/fotis_dulos

 

[oceancalling]

Oh my goodness....

I was attempting to update my informal list of Pattis patter today and came across this 'gem' of an article that I hadn't seen earlier about an 'exclusive' interview with No Case Norm. I had a good chuckle about the idea of any interview with Pattis being "exclusive" as he talks to anyone and everyone all the time with no discrimination and he even seemed willing to tackle a reporter after the last court appearance to get in front of their microphone to speak too IMO.

I'm going through this ridiculous exercise of tracking Pattis patter simply because I have never seen so many baseless theories tossed out in a manner that I think most would agree is fairly irresponsbile and so deeply shaming to a missing and now presumed dead victim.

Exclusive: Lawyer Norm Pattis says client Fotis Dulos' estranged and missing wife has a 'troubled past'

This 'exclusive' from FOX61 runs the gamut of victim shaming from No Case Norm where he discusses such gems as JD coming from 'troubled past', 'deeply troubled' to 'I think she had serious health issues'. All these statements were made by No Case Norm BTW with zero information to substantiate the claim. None. Zip. Nada and said with a straight face with zero shame IMO too! Can't find supporting information on any of it anywhere.

Seems more than a bit irresponsible to me? But, it continues.

No Case Norm then spins the tale that:

"Still, Pattis alleges that in the days leading up to her disappearance, Jennifer may have been the one trying to create "a center of gravity in New York" to relocate the children, too, even identifying potential doctors and dentists for her kids".

"She was not settled happily in New Cannan, intending to live there happily ever after," Pattis said".

Again, no info to support any of these claims that JD was unhappy in NC and was picking up sticks and moving to NYC with zero mention made that this most likely wouldn't be permitted until the divorce case had been settled.

Is Pattis trying to argue that FD was spun into a tower of rage such that he murdered his wife because she was threatening to move to NYC? We don't know because Pattis presents zero proof.

Reading through all this I wonder how many cases No Case Norm is trying here?!? Could Pattis be hallucinating or tripping and thinking aloud about possible theories for some of his other cases and forgotten he was speaking with FOX61 about FD? Nope. All this effort is being made on behalf of FD.

There are 2 co-defendants in this case but so far as I know Pattis just has responsibility for FD. But honestly he has presented enough theories 'de jour' to defend an entire cell block IMO. No wonder States Atty Colangelo is pursuing the gag order IMO. At this point IMO Pattis is a danger to his client with his gunshot approach in speaking with the press and there aren't words to explain what I think of the victim shaming/blaming going on here on an ongoing basis too.

So far I've counted 10 of what I'm calling 'major claims' by Pattis and frankly I'm going to give up even tracking the minor 'side show' issues such as Pattis claim in court last week that "there are many things I could have said but I haven't said so far and one includes JD taking money from FD accounts before her departure". Really? Family Court said FD provided $0 to support his children and provide for their welfare and Pattis has better information that JD took money from FD? By all means cough up the statements so we can see verification that FD has anything as he has been pleading poverty for 2 years and evading orders for disclosure in both Family Court and Civil Court.

Did No Case Norm not read the Family Court case documents or perhaps even task the intern to wander over to the court and take a look see? Nope. Pattis never lets the facts of anything stand in the way of making a derogotory statement about JD, never.

What is so facinating about all of this Pattis patter is that zero of it directly relates to his client FD. None.

I am so curious to see how No Case Norm plans to connect the dots in all this patter to then explain to a simple minded person like myself how his client FD and co-defendant MT were seen via Hartford City CCTV on Albany Ave in a Black Ford F-150 Raptor, stopping 30 times along the route to drop off the contents of black contractor bags. Perhaps FOX61 can get the "exclusive" on this story?

But no. Pattis is now attempting to get the FD cellphone data/contents surpressed and thinks that this will wave a magic wand over the entire Albany trip to make it disappear. Pattis is now done for the time being with victim shaming and he is moving on to shaming/blaming NCPD/State Police and LE in general with the supression motion IMO. I can't believe LE actually speaks to Pattis but according to him they do. I don't get it.

We are nearly 2 months into this sad and tragic tale and FD has zero alibi/alternative theory as Pattis likes to call it for the Albany trip with MT. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. So much for the rush to August trial, now Pattis is asking for the extra days over the weekend in order to file his motions as seen in this past weeks hearing. IMO the gag order can't come soon enough so perhaps Pattis & Crew can do some work to actually defend their client.

MOO MOO MOO

NP has resorted to throwing any ludicrous theory out there to see if it has legs. His ill-conceived shot gun approach has, quite frankly, done nothing to advance his client's case (or persuade anyone of his innocence, for that matter).

NP looks like just another publicity hungry talking head, who is in love with the sound of his own voice. Too bad the public is not so enamored of him.

FD comes off as a remorseless killer, who wants to convince others he is the true victim! Poor thing, can't even intimidate his mother-in-law to let his family (co-conspirators?) indoctrinate his children for him.

This amateurish dog and pony show will not end well for either this murderer or his attorney, IMO.