Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #27

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mama Arreaza used the same tactic in her dealings with the Federal Government over their charges of Medicaid Fraud....delay, delay, delay.

As we know, Mama's team went so far as moving law offices into her offices and hiring members of her office staff as members of their legal team so that the Federal government couldn't interview them or see the records. From the Stamford Advocate:

Arreaza closed the practice after being indicted and turned the office into a space for her "legal team" working on her defense, court papers said. Federal authorities accused Arreaza of paying D & D employees to work on her defense so they couldn't be interviewed by federal agents. Arreaza's attorney then sought to suppress evidence later gathered at the space since it was then considered a "law office," dedicated to her defense, court papers said.

Mama's case was dragged through the investigation and courts for about 7 years and finally ended in a pre-trial diversion program in December 2018. Mama knows how to work the law....or at least she thinks she does. (The accusations stemmed from activities in 2012-2013.)

Jennifer Dulos case: Michelle Troconis’ mother faced her own legal trouble

I knew MT’s mom had had these issues but forgot or didn’t know that she had used the delay tactics! That seems to explain a lot. I wouldn’t think that it would be so wise as to do this with a case like this one involving murder but I have no real idea. My gosh at the open audacity. MOO.
 
What Mama A may be overlooking when managing her daughter’s legal representation is that stealing large amounts of money is a completely different animal from being suspected of being a partner in a murder. They aren’t going to let her daughter enter a diversion program after 7 years of nothing. She is going to prison-that’s going to be her diversion program. Jeez-this really is a family full of Sc*mbags!

Oops! I just said some of the same things only not as well!
 
MT took the 5th bc “anything you say can and will be used against you...”
Part of Miranda warning. Even her name, once she says Michelle Traconis she’s opened the door to asking about any other names she has used, when, marriages etc.
Her lawyer would be a fool to tell her tell them everything. Or anything.
There’s no deal. So there’s no information forthcoming. I wouldn’t have even spoken about the coffee spill. Not one word. Nothing. Ever. Her future freedom depends on LE not putting the pieces together. Saying anything, her admissions, could move her from bystander to premeditated murder accomplice. Talking turns into evidence.

Very interesting! I have no experience in the legal area so do you mean that she is wise not to say a word ever even if evidence links her? And she could conceivably get away with that even if she were innocent of everything, which I don’t believe but MOO? Can anyone accused of a crime get away with it just by refusing to say anything at all? I’m not at all arguing with you; I’m asking sincerely as I am fascinated by all this. (Also, no worries; I have NO intention of committing a crime at all, never mind trying to get away with it in such a way!).
 
This is awful but I read the other day about someone being killed where the killer used a pillow as a type of silencer—and the blood spatter helped them know that was what was done. Could this be a possibility? We’ve never considered that a gun was used and I’m sure there is a good reason we didn’t but I’m just wondering now. MOO.
 
going low here but could be a possibility at some point so here i go..

he DID offer for KM attorney and his estranged wife to have marital relations at this home- who does that?? so this could be used for other shady business to get revenue, put feelers out for those kind of folks looking for locations..all MOO MOO MOO

And THERE’s an awful (but in this case quite possible in my opinion only) (MOO) thought! I’m still hoping that it wasn’t FD who put that ad up, and that it was a prankster although it wasn’t funny in MOO. I do recall when he apparently put that one ad on a site looking for people who had had dealings with a lawyer or judge. I forget the specifics now but it was discussed here earlier. MOO.
 
As you point out we do not know precisely why MT chose to invoke her 5th Amendment right in her deposition in Civil Court. As it now appears even the questions asked of MT will be sealed, it doesn't appear that there will be much in the way of public information as it relates to MT and FORE.

BUT. Just because we don't know why what happened did happen with MT taking the 5th in Civil Court, doesn't mean that it isn't possible to make a few educated guesses based on things we do know based on info that is part of the court record in Family Court and Civil Court.

The information gleaned from most recent Atty. W. memo in Civil Court was that MT involved her 5th Amendment right on ALL QUESTIONS. IMO for MT to invoke the 5th on such basic questions such as her name, her address, her dates of employment etc. has me at least questioning quite a bit about what is going on the MT Legal Camp, or not. Invoking on all questions will simply prolong the situation for MT as the court will not accept blanket provision.

Is MT afraid of retaliation by FD? If so, she should speak up to LE. But, I don't think MT is afraid of FD because by all accounts it seems like their strategy is to remain quiet and stick together to the end. Their end might be 2 people in orange jump suits in Federal Prison but perhaps in their minds they will feel like they went down fighting! IDK but its hard to see any strong argument here for MT cooperating with anyone other than those people that show her a picture of herself and ask her to ID herself! Its actually pretty stunning when you think about it and the fact that this has been going on now for 4 months. But, back to Civil Court.

My question is, did Atty B. advise MT to do what she did and not answer anything? No, my guess is he most likely did not. My personal estimation of Atty B. has diminished quite a bit watching this whole situation play out with MT, but my suspicion is that he has a difficult client who is constitutionally is unable to tell the truth and this makes her virtually impossible to work with as a client. I do not doubt in the least that Atty B. is fighting hard to protect his clients rights both in Civil and Criminal Court, but so far he has looked ineffective and in civil court as someone who is operating in bad faith - neither situations bode well for him or MT IMO. But, for whatever reason MT and IMO Mama A. just aren't ready, willing and able to play ball so far as we can tell from AW2 and what just played out in Civil Court. Frankly, IDK why Atty B. doesn't drop MT like a hot potato and enjoy the rest of the nice Indian Summer weather in CT is beyond me as she simply seems like a client that cannot be helped!

My guess is that MT was fully briefed by Atty. B for Civil Court and given a range of possible answers and instead of doing as she was briefed to do, MT did not comply. Why?

This raises the question of why MT might not have complied with atty instructions. Did Mama A. not agree with the Atty B. strategy and so told MT to keep her mouth shut even it meant risking court sanctions or some other punishment? Does Mama A. have another atty in the wings advising her and this person is calling the shots for MT and for whatever reason this other person disagreed with the advice of Atty. B? Had MT continued to lie to her atty such that Atty B. at the time he was negotiating in good faith with Atty. W about the substance of the depo that he had no idea that further criminal charges might result from answering the deposition questions proposed by Atty W?

IMO there is no way around the basic thought that Atty. B is not in control of his client and he really isn't positioned to negotiate on her behalf. My guess is that this might be true because MT is still unable to tell the truth about anything relating to FORE, FD and by extension to the criminal case JD. Again, you have to ask the very simply question of WHY?

Further MT doing what she did came after Atty. W carved back the substance of the depo to simply relate to MT time at FORE and financial matters. Atty. B. responded twice to civil court about the MT deposition and it appeared that he had a working relationship in place with Atty. W. as it related to the depo of MT. Criminal court weighed in on the situation and put FD outside the room and listening on camera. Everything seemed 'good to go' and smooth sailing and then what happened? MT didn't step up to do what she was supposed to do in the depo.

The extent of MT involvement in FD hiding money during the Family Court matter has been an obvious fact from the beginning as FD gave MT $75,000 which was used as a loan to purchase real estate (there is a lot more related to this transaction). This transaction also allegedly involved Sue Morin, Loan Officer from Farmington Bank (now Peoples) who invoked her 5th amendment right when deposed on this transaction in Family Court. What hasn't been so obvious is just how much MT knew about other shady dealings at FORE and how FD was hiding money in the divorce and how money left FORE for places unknown.

Did MT know that what she was doing was wrong when she took the money from FD and on lent it to a FD 'friend' for their shady house deal? My answer to this would be yes she did. MT had purchased real estate before in her life and knew what was permitted and what was not permitted to be used for down payment funds. My guess is that they all sat around the marble island at 4Jx and laughed about how they were going to pull the wool over the eyes of JD and her crack legal team while drinking expensive red wine paid for by JD.

OK. So this gets MT into the ballpark of possible mortgage fraud/bank fraud at the most basic level and this is a federal crime. This also gets her into the cross hairs of other fraud related to assisting FD hide money from the Family Court and also taking money from FORE coffers that had zero to do with FORE operations. Was MT involved with preparing financial statements of FORE and providing them as part of a loan package to the bank? Was MT party to any other similar deals involving situations where FD gave her money from FORE to invest or purchase real estate, either in the US or outside the US? My guess is a very strong yes and no doubt MT had connections from her time in Miami and outside the US on how to do all of this IMO.

Not a good situation for MT and clearly other criminal charges may be brought to say nothing of tax fraud both by the State and US Federal Govt. Do we know if FD invested FORE funds in MT Patagonia Styles rug business or any other MT or family enterprises? The Troconis clan broadly defined seemed to embrace FD and all things FORE and his relationship with MT, so I do wonder also if business transactions occurred between the 2 families? Knowing what we know of Mama A. creative grasp of US legal system, marketing skills and her personal experience with divorce, did she or anyone from the family assist FD to hide funds from JD in the Divorce? IDK but it seems possible! Do we know if FD invested FORE funds to purchase MT condo in Vail or FL or Argentina or Greece?

Do we know where MT got the funds to purchase real estate with $4,000/month support from baby daddy and her salary from FORE? No, we do not. My guess is that MT took the 5th on all the deposition questions because she didn't explain any of this to Atty B. My guess also is that MT can't talk about any of this ever as it will put her into the cross hairs of Federal crimes which will end her up in prison for a very long time as well. Its possible that she might just have to fall on her sword and go to prison rather than incriminating herself in much more serious crimes.

I do wonder though if with Atty B's federal contacts whether he might be able to negotiate a deal of some sort for MT? Again, IDK and I'm not sure if MT or Mama A are playing ball with Atty B or the State at all at this point.

The other thing that I find curious about MT and Mama A. not playing ball in civil court is that it seems like it might have been easier to cooperate now with GF efforts rather than risk the wrath of her legal team down the road with a potential civil suit possibly involving wrongful death that has the potential to financially ruin MT life and that of her family. My guess is that if MT involvement in the disappearance and murder of JD continues to evolve along the lines of what was alluded to in AW2 that there will be no place on earth that MT or the Arreza/Troconic clan will be able to hide to protect themselves from the legal wrath of GF. MOO. Perhaps the 2 issues of MT non cooperation with Civil Court and GF eventual wrongful death lawsuit cannot be tied together. IDK, but it makes sense on some very basic levels IMO.

But I do think its a safe assumption to think that MT taking the 5th in civil court confirms to me at least that the financial shenanigans at FORE were most likely illegal and involved both State and Federal Crimes. I don't think this at all is a 'wild speculation' as you posed in your OP as Atty B says as much himself based on what Atty W wrote in his followup motion to the Court.

I just hope the States Atty Colangelo is watching this all quite carefully and that the proper authorities at both the State and Federal levels are involved as well as I would hate for this all to be sealed up and justice not brought to bear on someone that clearly is STILL challenged to know the difference between 'right and wrong'.

MOO

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, Afitzy, for being here and for sharing these very carefully considered and insightful thoughts (as always with you) with us! Your dedication to this case and to JD and her family is boundless, and so is my appreciation for you and all you do. If I had figured out how to use emoticons on this site (regular ones don’t show up, it seems, which explains why sometimes I see replies with nothing said), you’d see a bunch of very smiley faces, confetti, and hearts here!
 
I believe it was Judge Heller's husband.
And THERE’s an awful (but in this case quite possible in my opinion only) (MOO) thought! I’m still hoping that it wasn’t FD who put that ad up, and that it was a prankster although it wasn’t funny in MOO. I do recall when he apparently put that one ad on a site looking for people who had had dealings with a lawyer or judge. I forget the specifics now but it was discussed here earlier. MOO.
 
What Mama A may be overlooking when managing her daughter’s legal representation is that stealing large amounts of money is a completely different animal from being suspected of being a partner in a murder. They aren’t going to let her daughter enter a diversion program after 7 years of nothing. She is going to prison-that’s going to be her diversion program. Jeez-this really is a family full of Sc*mbags!
Mama A. role in MT overall situation is something that I am starting to consider more each day. Originally I thought Mama A. showed up for moral support to boost her daughter who by all accounts didn't seem to be operating on all cylinders. But now I've revised my thinking as Mama A. hasn't departed by all accounts and seems to be an ongoing presence with MT.

Why? MT is 44 yo and presumably able to make her own decisions but we have seem both Papa T. and Mama A. Wonder if they are worried about MT not being able to make her choices or perhaps they don't trust Atty B? Or, perhaps they/the family are aware of the depth of FD and MT joint activities and they want to be local to look out for MT?

IDK. Certainly a lot to think about.

I do wonder though at what point a family member or members that have real and active knowledge of a situation might get pulled into LE's net or civil or criminal litigation? Its a tricky question that I am going to try to research further as it relates to the Arreza/Troconis clan as it might just be a real issue at present IMO.

MOO
 
Mama A. role in MT overall situation is something that I am starting to consider more each day. Originally I thought Mama A. showed up for moral support to boost her daughter who by all accounts didn't seem to be operating on all cylinders. But now I've revised my thinking as Mama A. hasn't departed by all accounts and seems to be an ongoing presence with MT.

Why? MT is 44 yo and presumably able to make her own decisions but we have seem both Papa T. and Mama A. Wonder if they are worried about MT not being able to make her choices or perhaps they don't trust Atty B? Or, perhaps they/the family are aware of the depth of FD and MT joint activities and they want to be local to look out for MT?

IDK. Certainly a lot to think about.

I do wonder though at what point a family member or members that have real and active knowledge of a situation might get pulled into LE's net or civil or criminal litigation? Its a tricky question that I am going to try to research further as it relates to the Arreza/Troconis clan as it might just be a real issue at present IMO.

MOO

In keeping with the depth of the family connections, does anyone have handy the family court motion that mentioned the number of Arreaza-Troconis family members who were invited and expected to be present for the big Greek Easter celebration at 4 Jefferson Crossing this year. Seems like very close connections for a woman who is "living in" with her boyfriend...IMO.
 
As you point out we do not know precisely why MT chose to invoke her 5th Amendment right in her deposition in Civil Court. As it now appears even the questions asked of MT will be sealed, it doesn't appear that there will be much in the way of public information as it relates to MT and FORE.

BUT. Just because we don't know why what happened did happen with MT taking the 5th in Civil Court, doesn't mean that it isn't possible to make a few educated guesses based on things we do know based on info that is part of the court record in Family Court and Civil Court.

The information gleaned from most recent Atty. W. memo in Civil Court was that MT involved her 5th Amendment right on ALL QUESTIONS. IMO for MT to invoke the 5th on such basic questions such as her name, her address, her dates of employment etc. has me at least questioning quite a bit about what is going on the MT Legal Camp, or not. Invoking on all questions will simply prolong the situation for MT as the court will not accept blanket provision.

Is MT afraid of retaliation by FD? If so, she should speak up to LE. But, I don't think MT is afraid of FD because by all accounts it seems like their strategy is to remain quiet and stick together to the end. Their end might be 2 people in orange jump suits in Federal Prison but perhaps in their minds they will feel like they went down fighting! IDK but its hard to see any strong argument here for MT cooperating with anyone other than those people that show her a picture of herself and ask her to ID herself! Its actually pretty stunning when you think about it and the fact that this has been going on now for 4 months. But, back to Civil Court.

My question is, did Atty B. advise MT to do what she did and not answer anything? No, my guess is he most likely did not. My personal estimation of Atty B. has diminished quite a bit watching this whole situation play out with MT, but my suspicion is that he has a difficult client who is constitutionally is unable to tell the truth and this makes her virtually impossible to work with as a client. I do not doubt in the least that Atty B. is fighting hard to protect his clients rights both in Civil and Criminal Court, but so far he has looked ineffective and in civil court as someone who is operating in bad faith - neither situations bode well for him or MT IMO. But, for whatever reason MT and IMO Mama A. just aren't ready, willing and able to play ball so far as we can tell from AW2 and what just played out in Civil Court. Frankly, IDK why Atty B. doesn't drop MT like a hot potato and enjoy the rest of the nice Indian Summer weather in CT is beyond me as she simply seems like a client that cannot be helped!

My guess is that MT was fully briefed by Atty. B for Civil Court and given a range of possible answers and instead of doing as she was briefed to do, MT did not comply. Why?

This raises the question of why MT might not have complied with atty instructions. Did Mama A. not agree with the Atty B. strategy and so told MT to keep her mouth shut even it meant risking court sanctions or some other punishment? Does Mama A. have another atty in the wings advising her and this person is calling the shots for MT and for whatever reason this other person disagreed with the advice of Atty. B? Had MT continued to lie to her atty such that Atty B. at the time he was negotiating in good faith with Atty. W about the substance of the depo that he had no idea that further criminal charges might result from answering the deposition questions proposed by Atty W?

IMO there is no way around the basic thought that Atty. B is not in control of his client and he really isn't positioned to negotiate on her behalf. My guess is that this might be true because MT is still unable to tell the truth about anything relating to FORE, FD and by extension to the criminal case JD. Again, you have to ask the very simply question of WHY?

Further MT doing what she did came after Atty. W carved back the substance of the depo to simply relate to MT time at FORE and financial matters. Atty. B. responded twice to civil court about the MT deposition and it appeared that he had a working relationship in place with Atty. W. as it related to the depo of MT. Criminal court weighed in on the situation and put FD outside the room and listening on camera. Everything seemed 'good to go' and smooth sailing and then what happened? MT didn't step up to do what she was supposed to do in the depo.

The extent of MT involvement in FD hiding money during the Family Court matter has been an obvious fact from the beginning as FD gave MT $75,000 which was used as a loan to purchase real estate (there is a lot more related to this transaction). This transaction also allegedly involved Sue Morin, Loan Officer from Farmington Bank (now Peoples) who invoked her 5th amendment right when deposed on this transaction in Family Court. What hasn't been so obvious is just how much MT knew about other shady dealings at FORE and how FD was hiding money in the divorce and how money left FORE for places unknown.

Did MT know that what she was doing was wrong when she took the money from FD and on lent it to a FD 'friend' for their shady house deal? My answer to this would be yes she did. MT had purchased real estate before in her life and knew what was permitted and what was not permitted to be used for down payment funds. My guess is that they all sat around the marble island at 4Jx and laughed about how they were going to pull the wool over the eyes of JD and her crack legal team while drinking expensive red wine paid for by JD.

OK. So this gets MT into the ballpark of possible mortgage fraud/bank fraud at the most basic level and this is a federal crime. This also gets her into the cross hairs of other fraud related to assisting FD hide money from the Family Court and also taking money from FORE coffers that had zero to do with FORE operations. Was MT involved with preparing financial statements of FORE and providing them as part of a loan package to the bank? Was MT party to any other similar deals involving situations where FD gave her money from FORE to invest or purchase real estate, either in the US or outside the US? My guess is a very strong yes and no doubt MT had connections from her time in Miami and outside the US on how to do all of this IMO.

Not a good situation for MT and clearly other criminal charges may be brought to say nothing of tax fraud both by the State and US Federal Govt. Do we know if FD invested FORE funds in MT Patagonia Styles rug business or any other MT or family enterprises? The Troconis clan broadly defined seemed to embrace FD and all things FORE and his relationship with MT, so I do wonder also if business transactions occurred between the 2 families? Knowing what we know of Mama A. creative grasp of US legal system, marketing skills and her personal experience with divorce, did she or anyone from the family assist FD to hide funds from JD in the Divorce? IDK but it seems possible! Do we know if FD invested FORE funds to purchase MT condo in Vail or FL or Argentina or Greece?

Do we know where MT got the funds to purchase real estate with $4,000/month support from baby daddy and her salary from FORE? No, we do not. My guess is that MT took the 5th on all the deposition questions because she didn't explain any of this to Atty B. My guess also is that MT can't talk about any of this ever as it will put her into the cross hairs of Federal crimes which will end her up in prison for a very long time as well. Its possible that she might just have to fall on her sword and go to prison rather than incriminating herself in much more serious crimes.

I do wonder though if with Atty B's federal contacts whether he might be able to negotiate a deal of some sort for MT? Again, IDK and I'm not sure if MT or Mama A are playing ball with Atty B or the State at all at this point.

The other thing that I find curious about MT and Mama A. not playing ball in civil court is that it seems like it might have been easier to cooperate now with GF efforts rather than risk the wrath of her legal team down the road with a potential civil suit possibly involving wrongful death that has the potential to financially ruin MT life and that of her family. My guess is that if MT involvement in the disappearance and murder of JD continues to evolve along the lines of what was alluded to in AW2 that there will be no place on earth that MT or the Arreza/Troconic clan will be able to hide to protect themselves from the legal wrath of GF. MOO. Perhaps the 2 issues of MT non cooperation with Civil Court and GF eventual wrongful death lawsuit cannot be tied together. IDK, but it makes sense on some very basic levels IMO.

But I do think its a safe assumption to think that MT taking the 5th in civil court confirms to me at least that the financial shenanigans at FORE were most likely illegal and involved both State and Federal Crimes. I don't think this at all is a 'wild speculation' as you posed in your OP as Atty B says as much himself based on what Atty W wrote in his followup motion to the Court.

I just hope the States Atty Colangelo is watching this all quite carefully and that the proper authorities at both the State and Federal levels are involved as well as I would hate for this all to be sealed up and justice not brought to bear on someone that clearly is STILL challenged to know the difference between 'right and wrong'.

MOO

This is a post that bears reading multiple times. There is so much here to consider and you made it so easy to follow. Thank you again!
 
Mama A. role in MT overall situation is something that I am starting to consider more each day. Originally I thought Mama A. showed up for moral support to boost her daughter who by all accounts didn't seem to be operating on all cylinders. But now I've revised my thinking as Mama A. hasn't departed by all accounts and seems to be an ongoing presence with MT.

Why? MT is 44 yo and presumably able to make her own decisions but we have seem both Papa T. and Mama A. Wonder if they are worried about MT not being able to make her choices or perhaps they don't trust Atty B? Or, perhaps they/the family are aware of the depth of FD and MT joint activities and they want to be local to look out for MT?

IDK. Certainly a lot to think about.

I do wonder though at what point a family member or members that have real and active knowledge of a situation might get pulled into LE's net or civil or criminal litigation? Its a tricky question that I am going to try to research further as it relates to the Arreza/Troconis clan as it might just be a real issue at present IMO.

MOO

Has her mom gone with her since that time her dad did? I’m starting to think that her mom is running this show, too. MOO.
 
Lately I have been wondering if after FD killed beautiful Jennifer, he took her body into the woods behind the house. Then, either he drove, or MT drove (wore a JD type wig) the suburban to Waveny. I guess we will know soon as we don’t know yet how close up the picture is of whoever drove the red Tacoma. But I wonder if somehow the body was disposed of before he even left Welles. With the new information that MT pleaded the fifth I think she was more involved than I previously thought. She could also have been lying in wait in the woods or in a nearby car to take the body in that car as he drove the suburban to Waveny and they disposed of it together somewhere or took it back to Farmington.
What’s also fishy is where was MT’s daughter that day after school and that night when they were cleaning up and fly dumping evidence ?
MT claimed she drove her daughter to school that day . Prove it . If the daughter doesn’t seem to be in the picture late afternoon and evening

She’s a bonafide liar so , her word carries zero weight . I don’t trust the pings from her phone placing her anywhere either .
As you point out we do not know precisely why MT chose to invoke her 5th Amendment right in her deposition in Civil Court. As it now appears even the questions asked of MT will be sealed, it doesn't appear that there will be much in the way of public information as it relates to MT and FORE.

BUT. Just because we don't know why what happened did happen with MT taking the 5th in Civil Court, doesn't mean that it isn't possible to make a few educated guesses based on things we do know based on info that is part of the court record in Family Court and Civil Court.

The information gleaned from most recent Atty. W. memo in Civil Court was that MT involved her 5th Amendment right on ALL QUESTIONS. IMO for MT to invoke the 5th on such basic questions such as her name, her address, her dates of employment etc. has me at least questioning quite a bit about what is going on the MT Legal Camp, or not. Invoking on all questions will simply prolong the situation for MT as the court will not accept blanket provision.

Is MT afraid of retaliation by FD? If so, she should speak up to LE. But, I don't think MT is afraid of FD because by all accounts it seems like their strategy is to remain quiet and stick together to the end. Their end might be 2 people in orange jump suits in Federal Prison but perhaps in their minds they will feel like they went down fighting! IDK but its hard to see any strong argument here for MT cooperating with anyone other than those people that show her a picture of herself and ask her to ID herself! Its actually pretty stunning when you think about it and the fact that this has been going on now for 4 months. But, back to Civil Court.

My question is, did Atty B. advise MT to do what she did and not answer anything? No, my guess is he most likely did not. My personal estimation of Atty B. has diminished quite a bit watching this whole situation play out with MT, but my suspicion is that he has a difficult client who is constitutionally is unable to tell the truth and this makes her virtually impossible to work with as a client. I do not doubt in the least that Atty B. is fighting hard to protect his clients rights both in Civil and Criminal Court, but so far he has looked ineffective and in civil court as someone who is operating in bad faith - neither situations bode well for him or MT IMO. But, for whatever reason MT and IMO Mama A. just aren't ready, willing and able to play ball so far as we can tell from AW2 and what just played out in Civil Court. Frankly, IDK why Atty B. doesn't drop MT like a hot potato and enjoy the rest of the nice Indian Summer weather in CT is beyond me as she simply seems like a client that cannot be helped!

My guess is that MT was fully briefed by Atty. B for Civil Court and given a range of possible answers and instead of doing as she was briefed to do, MT did not comply. Why?

This raises the question of why MT might not have complied with atty instructions. Did Mama A. not agree with the Atty B. strategy and so told MT to keep her mouth shut even it meant risking court sanctions or some other punishment? Does Mama A. have another atty in the wings advising her and this person is calling the shots for MT and for whatever reason this other person disagreed with the advice of Atty. B? Had MT continued to lie to her atty such that Atty B. at the time he was negotiating in good faith with Atty. W about the substance of the depo that he had no idea that further criminal charges might result from answering the deposition questions proposed by Atty W?

IMO there is no way around the basic thought that Atty. B is not in control of his client and he really isn't positioned to negotiate on her behalf. My guess is that this might be true because MT is still unable to tell the truth about anything relating to FORE, FD and by extension to the criminal case JD. Again, you have to ask the very simply question of WHY?

Further MT doing what she did came after Atty. W carved back the substance of the depo to simply relate to MT time at FORE and financial matters. Atty. B. responded twice to civil court about the MT deposition and it appeared that he had a working relationship in place with Atty. W. as it related to the depo of MT. Criminal court weighed in on the situation and put FD outside the room and listening on camera. Everything seemed 'good to go' and smooth sailing and then what happened? MT didn't step up to do what she was supposed to do in the depo.

The extent of MT involvement in FD hiding money during the Family Court matter has been an obvious fact from the beginning as FD gave MT $75,000 which was used as a loan to purchase real estate (there is a lot more related to this transaction). This transaction also allegedly involved Sue Morin, Loan Officer from Farmington Bank (now Peoples) who invoked her 5th amendment right when deposed on this transaction in Family Court. What hasn't been so obvious is just how much MT knew about other shady dealings at FORE and how FD was hiding money in the divorce and how money left FORE for places unknown.

Did MT know that what she was doing was wrong when she took the money from FD and on lent it to a FD 'friend' for their shady house deal? My answer to this would be yes she did. MT had purchased real estate before in her life and knew what was permitted and what was not permitted to be used for down payment funds. My guess is that they all sat around the marble island at 4Jx and laughed about how they were going to pull the wool over the eyes of JD and her crack legal team while drinking expensive red wine paid for by JD.

OK. So this gets MT into the ballpark of possible mortgage fraud/bank fraud at the most basic level and this is a federal crime. This also gets her into the cross hairs of other fraud related to assisting FD hide money from the Family Court and also taking money from FORE coffers that had zero to do with FORE operations. Was MT involved with preparing financial statements of FORE and providing them as part of a loan package to the bank? Was MT party to any other similar deals involving situations where FD gave her money from FORE to invest or purchase real estate, either in the US or outside the US? My guess is a very strong yes and no doubt MT had connections from her time in Miami and outside the US on how to do all of this IMO.

Not a good situation for MT and clearly other criminal charges may be brought to say nothing of tax fraud both by the State and US Federal Govt. Do we know if FD invested FORE funds in MT Patagonia Styles rug business or any other MT or family enterprises? The Troconis clan broadly defined seemed to embrace FD and all things FORE and his relationship with MT, so I do wonder also if business transactions occurred between the 2 families? Knowing what we know of Mama A. creative grasp of US legal system, marketing skills and her personal experience with divorce, did she or anyone from the family assist FD to hide funds from JD in the Divorce? IDK but it seems possible! Do we know if FD invested FORE funds to purchase MT condo in Vail or FL or Argentina or Greece?

Do we know where MT got the funds to purchase real estate with $4,000/month support from baby daddy and her salary from FORE? No, we do not. My guess is that MT took the 5th on all the deposition questions because she didn't explain any of this to Atty B. My guess also is that MT can't talk about any of this ever as it will put her into the cross hairs of Federal crimes which will end her up in prison for a very long time as well. Its possible that she might just have to fall on her sword and go to prison rather than incriminating herself in much more serious crimes.

I do wonder though if with Atty B's federal contacts whether he might be able to negotiate a deal of some sort for MT? Again, IDK and I'm not sure if MT or Mama A are playing ball with Atty B or the State at all at this point.

The other thing that I find curious about MT and Mama A. not playing ball in civil court is that it seems like it might have been easier to cooperate now with GF efforts rather than risk the wrath of her legal team down the road with a potential civil suit possibly involving wrongful death that has the potential to financially ruin MT life and that of her family. My guess is that if MT involvement in the disappearance and murder of JD continues to evolve along the lines of what was alluded to in AW2 that there will be no place on earth that MT or the Arreza/Troconic clan will be able to hide to protect themselves from the legal wrath of GF. MOO. Perhaps the 2 issues of MT non cooperation with Civil Court and GF eventual wrongful death lawsuit cannot be tied together. IDK, but it makes sense on some very basic levels IMO.

But I do think its a safe assumption to think that MT taking the 5th in civil court confirms to me at least that the financial shenanigans at FORE were most likely illegal and involved both State and Federal Crimes. I don't think this at all is a 'wild speculation' as you posed in your OP as Atty B says as much himself based on what Atty W wrote in his followup motion to the Court.

I just hope the States Atty Colangelo is watching this all quite carefully and that the proper authorities at both the State and Federal levels are involved as well as I would hate for this all to be sealed up and justice not brought to bear on someone that clearly is STILL challenged to know the difference between 'right and w
As you point out we do not know precisely why MT chose to invoke her 5th Amendment right in her deposition in Civil Court. As it now appears even the questions asked of MT will be sealed, it doesn't appear that there will be much in the way of public information as it relates to MT and FORE.

BUT. Just because we don't know why what happened did happen with MT taking the 5th in Civil Court, doesn't mean that it isn't possible to make a few educated guesses based on things we do know based on info that is part of the court record in Family Court and Civil Court.

The information gleaned from most recent Atty. W. memo in Civil Court was that MT involved her 5th Amendment right on ALL QUESTIONS. IMO for MT to invoke the 5th on such basic questions such as her name, her address, her dates of employment etc. has me at least questioning quite a bit about what is going on the MT Legal Camp, or not. Invoking on all questions will simply prolong the situation for MT as the court will not accept blanket provision.

Is MT afraid of retaliation by FD? If so, she should speak up to LE. But, I don't think MT is afraid of FD because by all accounts it seems like their strategy is to remain quiet and stick together to the end. Their end might be 2 people in orange jump suits in Federal Prison but perhaps in their minds they will feel like they went down fighting! IDK but its hard to see any strong argument here for MT cooperating with anyone other than those people that show her a picture of herself and ask her to ID herself! Its actually pretty stunning when you think about it and the fact that this has been going on now for 4 months. But, back to Civil Court.

My question is, did Atty B. advise MT to do what she did and not answer anything? No, my guess is he most likely did not. My personal estimation of Atty B. has diminished quite a bit watching this whole situation play out with MT, but my suspicion is that he has a difficult client who is constitutionally is unable to tell the truth and this makes her virtually impossible to work with as a client. I do not doubt in the least that Atty B. is fighting hard to protect his clients rights both in Civil and Criminal Court, but so far he has looked ineffective and in civil court as someone who is operating in bad faith - neither situations bode well for him or MT IMO. But, for whatever reason MT and IMO Mama A. just aren't ready, willing and able to play ball so far as we can tell from AW2 and what just played out in Civil Court. Frankly, IDK why Atty B. doesn't drop MT like a hot potato and enjoy the rest of the nice Indian Summer weather in CT is beyond me as she simply seems like a client that cannot be helped!

My guess is that MT was fully briefed by Atty. B for Civil Court and given a range of possible answers and instead of doing as she was briefed to do, MT did not comply. Why?

This raises the question of why MT might not have complied with atty instructions. Did Mama A. not agree with the Atty B. strategy and so told MT to keep her mouth shut even it meant risking court sanctions or some other punishment? Does Mama A. have another atty in the wings advising her and this person is calling the shots for MT and for whatever reason this other person disagreed with the advice of Atty. B? Had MT continued to lie to her atty such that Atty B. at the time he was negotiating in good faith with Atty. W about the substance of the depo that he had no idea that further criminal charges might result from answering the deposition questions proposed by Atty W?

IMO there is no way around the basic thought that Atty. B is not in control of his client and he really isn't positioned to negotiate on her behalf. My guess is that this might be true because MT is still unable to tell the truth about anything relating to FORE, FD and by extension to the criminal case JD. Again, you have to ask the very simply question of WHY?

Further MT doing what she did came after Atty. W carved back the substance of the depo to simply relate to MT time at FORE and financial matters. Atty. B. responded twice to civil court about the MT deposition and it appeared that he had a working relationship in place with Atty. W. as it related to the depo of MT. Criminal court weighed in on the situation and put FD outside the room and listening on camera. Everything seemed 'good to go' and smooth sailing and then what happened? MT didn't step up to do what she was supposed to do in the depo.

The extent of MT involvement in FD hiding money during the Family Court matter has been an obvious fact from the beginning as FD gave MT $75,000 which was used as a loan to purchase real estate (there is a lot more related to this transaction). This transaction also allegedly involved Sue Morin, Loan Officer from Farmington Bank (now Peoples) who invoked her 5th amendment right when deposed on this transaction in Family Court. What hasn't been so obvious is just how much MT knew about other shady dealings at FORE and how FD was hiding money in the divorce and how money left FORE for places unknown.

Did MT know that what she was doing was wrong when she took the money from FD and on lent it to a FD 'friend' for their shady house deal? My answer to this would be yes she did. MT had purchased real estate before in her life and knew what was permitted and what was not permitted to be used for down payment funds. My guess is that they all sat around the marble island at 4Jx and laughed about how they were going to pull the wool over the eyes of JD and her crack legal team while drinking expensive red wine paid for by JD.

OK. So this gets MT into the ballpark of possible mortgage fraud/bank fraud at the most basic level and this is a federal crime. This also gets her into the cross hairs of other fraud related to assisting FD hide money from the Family Court and also taking money from FORE coffers that had zero to do with FORE operations. Was MT involved with preparing financial statements of FORE and providing them as part of a loan package to the bank? Was MT party to any other similar deals involving situations where FD gave her money from FORE to invest or purchase real estate, either in the US or outside the US? My guess is a very strong yes and no doubt MT had connections from her time in Miami and outside the US on how to do all of this IMO.

Not a good situation for MT and clearly other criminal charges may be brought to say nothing of tax fraud both by the State and US Federal Govt. Do we know if FD invested FORE funds in MT Patagonia Styles rug business or any other MT or family enterprises? The Troconis clan broadly defined seemed to embrace FD and all things FORE and his relationship with MT, so I do wonder also if business transactions occurred between the 2 families? Knowing what we know of Mama A. creative grasp of US legal system, marketing skills and her personal experience with divorce, did she or anyone from the family assist FD to hide funds from JD in the Divorce? IDK but it seems possible! Do we know if FD invested FORE funds to purchase MT condo in Vail or FL or Argentina or Greece?

Do we know where MT got the funds to purchase real estate with $4,000/month support from baby daddy and her salary from FORE? No, we do not. My guess is that MT took the 5th on all the deposition questions because she didn't explain any of this to Atty B. My guess also is that MT can't talk about any of this ever as it will put her into the cross hairs of Federal crimes which will end her up in prison for a very long time as well. Its possible that she might just have to fall on her sword and go to prison rather than incriminating herself in much more serious crimes.

I do wonder though if with Atty B's federal contacts whether he might be able to negotiate a deal of some sort for MT? Again, IDK and I'm not sure if MT or Mama A are playing ball with Atty B or the State at all at this point.

The other thing that I find curious about MT and Mama A. not playing ball in civil court is that it seems like it might have been easier to cooperate now with GF efforts rather than risk the wrath of her legal team down the road with a potential civil suit possibly involving wrongful death that has the potential to financially ruin MT life and that of her family. My guess is that if MT involvement in the disappearance and murder of JD continues to evolve along the lines of what was alluded to in AW2 that there will be no place on earth that MT or the Arreza/Troconic clan will be able to hide to protect themselves from the legal wrath of GF. MOO. Perhaps the 2 issues of MT non cooperation with Civil Court and GF eventual wrongful death lawsuit cannot be tied together. IDK, but it makes sense on some very basic levels IMO.

But I do think its a safe assumption to think that MT taking the 5th in civil court confirms to me at least that the financial shenanigans at FORE were most likely illegal and involved both State and Federal Crimes. I don't think this at all is a 'wild speculation' as you posed in your OP as Atty B says as much himself based on what Atty W wrote in his followup motion to the Court.

I just hope the States Atty Colangelo is watching this all quite carefully and that the proper authorities at both the State and Federal levels are involved as well as I would hate for this all to be sealed up and justice not brought to bear on someone that clearly is STILL challenged to know the difference between 'right and wrong'.

MOO
The apple doesn’t seem to fall far from the tree . Mama is shady so, is her offspring .

I don’t think questions were posed by MT’s family in regards to inquiring if FD was a stand up guy or suitable match worthy of uprooting their granddaughter and moving her cross country . All they needed to know was that FD was “rich” and Mama was all in.

Albeit, MT was a grown woman and didn’t need the approval of her parents she just needed to survive.

She threw caution to the wind, made a fatal mistake by latching onto a adulterer and swindler . MT had to go along with whatever fraudulent scheme FD concocted and stirred up in his Cauldron of deceit. MT knows every crumb that was taken and where it went.
moo
 
Very interesting! I have no experience in the legal area so do you mean that she is wise not to say a word ever even if evidence links her? And she could conceivably get away with that even if she were innocent of everything, which I don’t believe but MOO? Can anyone accused of a crime get away with it just by refusing to say anything at all? I’m not at all arguing with you; I’m asking sincerely as I am fascinated by all this. (Also, no worries; I have NO intention of committing a crime at all, never mind trying to get away with it in such a way!).

Well, there is that contempt of court issue, which could put her in jail for at least a little while. And I suppose they can keep putting her back in jail if she continues to refuse to answer questions that aren’t going to incriminate her. That may get old after a while. The main thing that I took from this blanket 5th thing is that it says to me that she isn’t cooperating with LE in the disappearance of Jennifer. Maybe that is a big leap to make, but I don’t think so. She is protecting herself by not answering some of the questions, but she is protecting him by not answering the others. MOO!
 
In keeping with the depth of the family connections, does anyone have handy the family court motion that mentioned the number of Arreaza-Troconis family members who were invited and expected to be present for the big Greek Easter celebration at 4 Jefferson Crossing this year. Seems like very close connections for a woman who is "living in" with her boyfriend...IMO.

That big Greek Easter celebration meant a lot to FD-remember how ticked off he was that he wouldn’t be able to have the 5 children there for it? I think his response was something like “Great, now the kids don’t have Easter”. It seemed like this was bigger than just Easter, though-what else were they celebrating? Is that when MT got the ring that she wears on her right hand? Sort of a promise for the future when JD was no longer in the picture (you know, when the divorce was final...)
 
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, Afitzy, for being here and for sharing these very carefully considered and insightful thoughts (as always with you) with us! Your dedication to this case and to JD and her family is boundless, and so is my appreciation for you and all you do. If I had figured out how to use emoticons on this site (regular ones don’t show up, it seems, which explains why sometimes I see replies with nothing said), you’d see a bunch of very smiley faces, confetti, and hearts here!
Beautiful analysis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
1,784
Total visitors
1,997

Forum statistics

Threads
599,814
Messages
18,099,891
Members
230,932
Latest member
Marni
Back
Top