Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #29

[SkylarSid]

According to page 2 of Weinstein's motion, MT "told investigators" - I assume LE - that she "drove back with Dulos to Farmington, stopped at the bank, went to the car wash at which she dropped of [sic] Dulos, and drove back to pick up her daughter." (bbm)

However, didn't we learn afterwards that she didn't actually drop off Dulos at the car wash and drive right back - she went to the car wash, too, right? Please correct me if not so.

And this may mean that Weinstein is believing her initial word on this (her lying to law enforcement).
If correct, why did she lie about this?

So the 'picking up her daughter' part might just be yet another lie to LE. To cover up the fact that she knew how important that car washing was? Or - ? Was there more about her daughter - someone else picked her up, or she stayed later at school (because MT knew she had to do things that day)?

ETA last line.

She is weak and inconsistent in her statements. She is not accustomed to or ready to engage in these kinds of legal realities. She allowed herself to follow FD, but she had no clue and still has no clue in how to understand what the consequences coming her way may be. There is no amount of money that is going to abscond her from so many facts - her own statement stated the body was in the car. And she is on camera on Albany Av., going to the car wash, and she wrote an untrusted alibi list. If I were in her own shoes, I would be dependent on a massive amount of benzodiapine just to get out of bed and try to face the day.

 

[Alathea]

She is weak and inconsistent in her statements. She is not accustomed to or ready to engage in these kinds of legal realities. She allowed herself to follow FD, but she had no clue and still has no clue in how to understand what the consequences coming her way may be. There is no amount of money that is going to abscond her from so many facts - her own statement stated the body was in the car. And she is on camera on Albany Av., going to the car wash, and she wrote an untrusted alibi list. If I were in her own shoes, I would be dependent on a massive amount of benzodiapine just to get out of bed and try to face the day.

Agreed. Her lies (like the ones about the car wash) show she doesn't know when to talk, and when to tell the truth. She may be able to get seriously reduced time in jail if she were to spill everything she knows - even if guilty of abetting FD. She'll be going to jail one way or the other, but for far longer, since she's not talking. I wonder how much she's telling her own lawyer.

Regarding being dependent on anything - she may well be that, too. I don't know, but I do know the way she looks... well, nevermind.

 

[Megnut]

Methinketh shethinketh that fairytale riches await her.

That's what she's holding out for. She stays mum, he slips through charges, they meet up at their pre-planned lovenest in Greece and waterski into the sunset.

She rolls and he's doing time. A LOT of time.

She's gambling.

MOO

 

[SkylarSid]

Methinketh shethinketh that fairytale riches await her.

That's what she's holding out for. She stays mum, he slips through charges, they meet up at their pre-planned lovenest in Greece and waterski into the sunset.

She rolls and he's doing time. A LOT of time.

She's gambling.

MOO

Sounds like delusion thinking to me. In psychology terms - either codependent to a narcissist or Schizo-Affective disorder.

 

[Jmoose]

Would a marriage clause actually work? I wouldn't think she would be exempt from discussing what happened before they were married. But, IANAL and I have no clue.

I don’t know if it would work-not sure if stuff that happens prior to marriage is exempt from the sanctity of marriage or not. But maybe those two are as uninformed as we are!

 

[Mimi in London]

Is there a time frame to wait, like 7 years, to declare someone dead if there is no body?

If marriage to MT would benefit FD, this could support the theory that he actually wants JD’s body to be found.

I refer to what was, IMO, a Freudian slip in his tv interview where he says “I keep hoping it (quickly corrects to ‘she’) will show up”. Said with his special smirk.

Ideal scenario for him, then, would have been for JD to “show up” dead at the hands of some stranger/project manager. That way FD bwould still benefit from the spousal entitlements AND be free to marry into MT’s shady clan. What’s the incentive for him to marry her, though? Currently it would be her silence, but back then when the deed was done, what?

IMO

 

[Megnut]

Delusional....but also protective. Once she starts talking, she'll have to confront her own depravity. She was ready to do what she did; she's not ready to admit it.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

Good catch, with that slip. Wow, is he cold.

It will never be anything but all about him. For him.

For sure he believes himself to be smarter than LE. He trusts his attorneys will get everything damning thrown out at trial.

He knows what he did and what he didn't do.

He seems to think that's somehow self-exhonerating.

If she went missing by any other means than his hands, he'd be concerned for her safety. If he were a normal human being, that is.

He knows where she is. And where she isn't.

I think two people made a pact never to tell.

MOO

 

[hivee]

If she still "loves" him, something is seriously wrong. No woman, no person, in their right mind would protect a killer. Which is why we're all saying...she isn't in her right mind/doesn't have a right mind.
My opinion only.
ETA: I'd be curious about any mental disorders and/or childhood trauma. Maybe it's just drug use. Something's not right, and was never right for her to get involved with him in the first place.

 

[Jmoose]

Methinketh shethinketh that fairytale riches await her.

That's what she's holding out for. She stays mum, he slips through charges, they meet up at their pre-planned lovenest in Greece and waterski into the sunset.

She rolls and he's doing time. A LOT of time.

She's gambling.

MOO

Yes, she is-rolling the dice. What a miserable excuse for a human being

 

[Jmoose]

Sounds like delusion thinking to me. In psychology terms - either codependent to a narcissist or Schizo-Affective disorder.

But so far, it’s working for her...we’ll see if it continues to do so. I think that LE are struggling because they don’t have Jennifer’s body, and they don’t have MT’s cooperation. And FD’s universe is peopled with more scoundrels than I thought one person could collect in a lifetime-he barely knows any honorable people at all, it seems. I am frankly shocked that of all of the people with whom he regularly consorts, none will tell the police what they need to know. Was there really that much money flowing? The Farbers loaned him (via Fore Group) the money to build some of these white elephants-I think the total was around $10mil, all in. He paid back all but around $2 mil, give or take a half a mil. That is a lot of money, generally speaking-but to spread around to all of these people, it suddenly doesn’t sound like a lot of money anymore, especially when FD and MT live so high on the hog. Can this $2.5 mil really be enough to keep all of these people in the kind of clover that will make them keep quiet? There has to be something else going on, for all of these people to be so afraid to speak truthfully with LE. LE wants Dulos, and maybe MT. Markowitz could be disbarred, but he is 71, and by his own admission, retired. Is he going to be sent to jail? I think he could spill, without getting into too much trouble-unless I am seriously underestimating him.

 

[pandaknows]

According to page 2 of Weinstein's motion, MT "told investigators" - I assume LE - that she "drove back with Dulos to Farmington, stopped at the bank, went to the car wash at which she dropped of [sic] Dulos, and drove back to pick up her daughter." (bbm)

However, didn't we learn afterwards that she didn't actually drop off Dulos at the car wash and drive right back - she went to the car wash, too, right? Please correct me if not so.

And this may mean that Weinstein is believing her initial word on this (her lying to law enforcement).

If correct, why did she lie about this?

So the 'picking up her daughter' part might just be yet another lie to LE. To cover up the fact that she knew how important that car washing was? Or - ? Was there more about her daughter - someone else picked her up, or she stayed later at school (because MT knew she had to do things that day)?

Because if she had arranged another pickup for her daughter, it shows former knowledge/planning of what she was doing that day.

ETA last 2 paragraphs

I appreciate the care with which both documents, AW2 and Atty Weinstein's motion, were written because IMO both documents were meant to tease MT and Atty Bowman with knowledge that LE and Atty Weinstein's PI uncovered.

Photo of MT's rental used to tail FD!
IMO, with the discovery that a photo exists (see page 27 of AW2) of "the black Chevrolet Yukon rental vehicle operated by Troconis following" the red Tacoma truck operated by Dulos, video can now be searched on May 24, 2019 for a red Tacoma truck operated by Dulos followed by a black Chevrolet Yukon operated by Troconis. Wouldn't that suggest that LE and Atty Weinstein can put Troconis right by Dulos' side on the morning of the murder?

The math works!
Because the only way a math geek like FD would play the prisoner's dilemma game is if both parties participated equally in the crime so that the punishment for spilling the beans would be equal for both parties and no advantage would rest with the lesser culpable party to make a deal. FD does not trust MT, IMO. FD made MT share in the risk/reward payoff 50/50. The plan was that both FD and MT would stick together on 5/24 and 5/25 and possibly for everything else so that neither would be less guilty than the other. Since both FD and MT are in it together as equal partners, there is no need for counsel to advise one co-criminal to act independently of the other as in the typical fashion of breaking the joint alibi by separating the two and prohibiting communications so that LE can get some tit-for-tat with every iteration of the traditional prisoner's dilemma game where one prisoner is encouraged to rat on the other.

The Big Tease
This arrangement, set in place on 5/29/19 or perhaps even before the "first" meeting with Atty Bowman is the big tease, IMO, mentioned repeatedly in both AW2 and Atty Weinstein's motion. It raises the question: How many prior meetings with Atty Bowman? And for what purpose? Perhaps that explains the frantic sealing of MT's depo questions, so uncharacteristic of Atty Bowman's reputation for fair dealing. MOO.

 

[Jmoose]

Good catch, with that slip. Wow, is he cold.

It will never be anything but all about him. For him.

For sure he believes himself to be smarter than LE. He trusts his attorneys will get everything damning thrown out at trial.

He knows what he did and what he didn't do.

He seems to think that's somehow self-exhonerating.

If she went missing by any other means than his hands, he'd be concerned for her safety. If he were a normal human being, that is.

He knows where she is. And where she isn't.

I think two people made a pact never to tell.

MOO

You’re right-if anyone but FD disappeared her, he would be searching everywhere for her, because he is the ONLY suspect, and an extremely good one. He would be desperate for all of the details to come out, he wouldn’t be hiding a thing, and neither would his girlfriend.

 

[NDreu]

According to page 2 of Weinstein's motion, MT "told investigators" - I assume LE - that she "drove back with Dulos to Farmington, stopped at the bank, went to the car wash at which she dropped of [sic] Dulos, and drove back to pick up her daughter." (bbm)

However, didn't we learn afterwards that she didn't actually drop off Dulos at the car wash and drive right back - she went to the car wash, too, right? Please correct me if not so.

And this may mean that Weinstein is believing her initial word on this (her lying to law enforcement).

If correct, why did she lie about this?

So the 'picking up her daughter' part might just be yet another lie to LE. To cover up the fact that she knew how important that car washing was? Or - ? Was there more about her daughter - someone else picked her up, or she stayed later at school (because MT knew she had to do things that day)?

Because if she had arranged another pickup for her daughter, it shows former knowledge/planning of what she was doing that day.

ETA last 2 paragraphs

Yes, the MT daughter pickup question has existed for a long time and it wasn't IMO resolved in AW2. But by now LE has tracked down the answer and if there was a prearranged pickup of the daughter it has been figured out and fully documented. I am just glad for MT daughter to not be in CT to be part of watching her mother be tried and most likely sent to prison for a long long time. A cynical part of me believes that MT and Mama A sent the daughter away to not be deposed by LE as she had been at 4Jx for a good long while and was old enough to hear and understand things that went on.

While MT daughter was a victim of circumstances, the sad reality was that she was also used by MT and FD as a dupe to engage with the 5 Dulos children according to the Family Court documents.

I think it was the decision of MT and FD to use MT daughter to engage the children when it became crystal clear that these were two individuals that would stop at nothing and would not hesitate to use anyone, even an innocent child, to accomplish their aims.

IMO morally bankrupt doesn't even begin to cover MT and her choices as a 'mother' and I frankly do not understand why CT CPS didn't intervene to remove the MT daughter from the situation after MT first arrest?

MOO

 

[NDreu]

I appreciate the care with which both documents, AW2 and Atty Weinstein's motion, were written because IMO both documents were meant to tease MT and Atty Bowman with knowledge that LE and Atty Weinstein's PI uncovered.

Photo of MT's rental used to tail FD!
IMO, with the discovery that a photo exists (see page 27 of AW2) of "the black Chevrolet Yukon rental vehicle operated by Troconis following" the red Tacoma truck operated by Dulos, video can now be searched on May 24, 2019 for a red Tacoma truck operated by Dulos followed by a black Chevrolet Yukon operated by Troconis. Wouldn't that suggest that LE and Atty Weinstein can put Troconis right by Dulos' side on the morning of the murder?

The math works!
Because the only way a math geek like FD would play the prisoner's dilemma game is if both parties participated equally in the crime so that the punishment for spilling the beans would be equal for both parties and no advantage would rest with the lesser culpable party to make a deal. FD does not trust MT, IMO. FD made MT share in the risk/reward payoff 50/50. The plan was that both FD and MT would stick together on 5/24 and 5/25 and possibly for everything else so that neither would be less guilty than the other. Since both FD and MT are in it together as equal partners, there is no need for counsel to advise one co-criminal to act independently of the other as in the typical fashion of breaking the joint alibi by separating the two and prohibiting communications so that LE can get some tit-for-tat with every iteration of the traditional prisoner's dilemma game where one prisoner is encouraged to rat on the other.

The Big Tease
This arrangement, set in place on 5/29/19 or perhaps even before the "first" meeting with Atty Bowman is the big tease, IMO, mentioned repeatedly in both AW2 and Atty Weinstein's motion. It raises the question: How many prior meetings with Atty Bowman? And for what purpose? Perhaps that explains the frantic sealing of MT's depo questions, so uncharacteristic of Atty Bowman's reputation for fair dealing. MOO.

FD creating a scenario of risk/reward payoff of 50/50 is an interesting theory and it could have been how he 'sold' MT on the idea and its impossible to know what her intelligence level might be, so maybe she bought the scam hook line and sinker. But knowing FD he would push the risk onto MT and up his own reward IMO based on what we know about him! We saw FD tossing MT a rag to get her DNA on the item in AW2 and who knows what other ways he worked to set her up too! I wonder if FD cleaned her hair brush for months and used the collected hair to taint the evidence and possibly even leave a 'clue' at Welles? I wouldn't put it past him. We also saw him drag along MT to Albany Avenue and I wonder who she might have been on the phone to while on the ride?

But, I don't see how the 'reward' allocation could ever be close to 50/50 in this particular case as any financial upside (that we are aware of at least) would go to FD and MT really is just a disposable hanger-oner who doesn't have a substantial legal 'hook' into FD in the form of a child or marriage, and depending on what you believe MT role in the situation was, she would have incriminating evidence against FD that could be used for blackmail or to save her own hide with a plea deal, but it doesn't seem likely that she could ever avoid prison IMO. Could she possibly sue for 'palimony' in CT, IDK? But if FD was a nightmare in divorce court can you imagine how he would behave in a palimony suit?

The meeting/s with Atty Bowman are interesting as the language in the arrest warrant was somewhat vague as to whether Atty Bowman met with BOTH MT and FD or just MT. The question of how many meetings MT had with Atty Bowman is interesting as is understanding how Atty Bowman was found and who is paying his very high bills?

IMO the view of Atty Bowman has to be altered greatly by the game he is playing in civil case by not sending proper notices to Plaintiff. This was a minor league ploy that Atty Weinstein stomped on immediately. I am not convinced that Atty Bowman is in control of his client and her narrative. The presence of Mama A IMO is highly telling and I also very much wonder what other atty's Mama A has working on the sidelines and whether Atty Bowman's only role is that of 'bag man' and person to file the motions as he is the one with the CT license?

Something doesn't seem to be adding up with MT representation IMO and the tip off was the most recent Atty Bowman motion that didn't properly notice the plaintiff. Someone very very much doesn't want MT to speak in civil court and I'm not sure who it is exactly as there are a few players involved that would clearly benefit. But I do seriously question whether Atty Bowman would put his credibility and reputation on the line for 'cheap tricks' just for whatever his billing rate might be? At the end of it all you just have a reputation and already with a client lying to LE for over 2 months and now this 'cheap tricks' motion, it looks like Atty Bowman might not be any different from Atty Norman Pattis and this is saying quite a bit IMO!

MOO

 

[Midwestmom2019]

If I'm not mistaken, they dissolved early. Markowitz used the dissolution papers to try to get out of his depo with Weinstein. MOO

Regarding Mawhinney being copied on motions:

It would seem he cannot be copied after Halloween, as he's going to turn into a pumpkin - that is, he will be dissolving his practice.

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Former-Fotis-Dulos-attorney-accused-of-spousal-14272055.php
In the motion, David Markowitz and Mawhinney stated their practice will be dissolved on Oct. 31. They also cited Markowitz’s age of 71 and Mawhinney’s interest to pursue immigration law as reasons for their withdrawal from the case.

They are dissolving the law partnership. Not his law practice.
But while I’m on the topic, maybe Markowitz being 71 is NOT the true reason.
Distancing himself from blood makes a lot of sense to me. And a great reason that the paperwork needed is somehow misplaced. Duh. I meant maybe shredded.

Oh, do we know destroying evidence is a crime? Hmmm. Maybe he should read up on the news in NC. I’m sure the AWs are there somewhere.
Thank goodness Attorney Weinstein is on deck.

 

[NDreu]

They are dissolving the law partnership. Not his law practice.
But while I’m on the topic, maybe Markowitz being 71 is NOT the true reason.
Distancing himself from blood makes a lot of sense to me. And a great reason that the paperwork needed is somehow misplaced. Duh. I meant maybe shredded.

Oh, do we know destroying evidence is a crime? Hmmm. Maybe he should read up on the news in NC. I’m sure the AWs are there somewhere.
Thank goodness Attorney Weinstein is on deck.

Yes, thank goodness for Atty Weinstein but he is one person fighting against a sizeable crew of vipers and deplorables in the form of: KM, Atty BM, Atty Norman Pattis, FD, MT, Mama A. and Atty Bowman.

The Judge still remains a huge question mark here IMO and while he seems to have successfully consolidated the cases, his ruling on the Atty Norman Pattis motion to quash IMO led to more questions than it answered and it doesn't seem that he has done much of anything to put a 'check' on Atty BM motions regarding discovery.

This overall situation has meant that Atty Weinstein has had to work at triple time and triple speed because of all the road blocks being placed in his direction by the crew of deplorables.

Knowing what we know about KM can probably tell us most of what we need to know about Atty Markowitz. Given what we know about FD, what kind of atty do you think he would trust his 'paperwork' to? I know how I would answer this question!

MOO

 

[HopeForTheBest]

And, unfortunately for her daughter....anything the child wants or doesn't want to know about "how her life began" is public record.

One would think that MT would want to leave a more positive record of her life choices by cooperating with LE on the disappearance of another woman and the mother of five children so very close in age to her own child's.

I hope that child understands—and believes it because it’s true—that her mother’s actions are no reflection on her and that anyone who tries to shame her because of her mom is no one she needs to be around. It’s often said that even kids who are horribly abused by a parent often still cling to or love the parent—and then they feel badly about that. They need help to deal with that and not shamed for any of it but what a burden. MOO.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

FD creating a scenario of risk/reward payoff of 50/50 is an interesting theory and it could have been how he 'sold' MT on the idea and its impossible to know what her intelligence level might be, so maybe she bought the scam hook line and sinker. But knowing FD he would push the risk onto MT and up his own reward IMO based on what we know about him! We saw FD tossing MT a rag to get her DNA on the item in AW2 and who knows what other ways he worked to set her up too! I wonder if FD cleaned her hair brush for months and used the collected hair to taint the evidence and possibly even leave a 'clue' at Welles? I wouldn't put it past him. We also saw him drag along MT to Albany Avenue and I wonder who she might have been on the phone to while on the ride?

But, I don't see how the 'reward' allocation could ever be close to 50/50 in this particular case as any financial upside (that we are aware of at least) would go to FD and MT really is just a disposable hanger-oner who doesn't have a substantial legal 'hook' into FD in the form of a child or marriage, and depending on what you believe MT role in the situation was, she would have incriminating evidence against FD that could be used for blackmail or to save her own hide with a plea deal, but it doesn't seem likely that she could ever avoid prison IMO. Could she possibly sue for 'palimony' in CT, IDK? But if FD was a nightmare in divorce court can you imagine how he would behave in a palimony suit?

The meeting/s with Atty Bowman are interesting as the language in the arrest warrant was somewhat vague as to whether Atty Bowman met with BOTH MT and FD or just MT. The question of how many meetings MT had with Atty Bowman is interesting as is understanding how Atty Bowman was found and who is paying his very high bills?

IMO the view of Atty Bowman has to be altered greatly by the game he is playing in civil case by not sending proper notices to Plaintiff. This was a minor league ploy that Atty Weinstein stomped on immediately. I am not convinced that Atty Bowman is in control of his client and her narrative. The presence of Mama A IMO is highly telling and I also very much wonder what other atty's Mama A has working on the sidelines and whether Atty Bowman's only role is that of 'bag man' and person to file the motions as he is the one with the CT license?

Something doesn't seem to be adding up with MT representation IMO and the tip off was the most recent Atty Bowman motion that didn't properly notice the plaintiff. Someone very very much doesn't want MT to speak in civil court and I'm not sure who it is exactly as there are a few players involved that would clearly benefit. But I do seriously question whether Atty Bowman would put his credibility and reputation on the line for 'cheap tricks' just for whatever his billing rate might be? At the end of it all you just have a reputation and already with a client lying to LE for over 2 months and now this 'cheap tricks' motion, it looks like Atty Bowman might not be any different from Atty Norman Pattis and this is saying quite a bit IMO!

MOO

Maybe this is Bowman’s last stand. He’s decided to retire. And go out with more cash in his retirement funds.
Not noticing Mr. Weinstein was a clerical error. IMHO.
I don’t think Mr. Bowman needs to play that low. But we’ll see when he responds to Mr. W.
I would think CT is on internet filing system. Everything goes to everyone listed. But the system can be tricked. Just remove the recipient. Once filed, put Mr. W back.
I really hope Mr. W isn’t falling into the lying mode to get an advantage. That they desperately need.
What a mess.

 

[acutename]

If marriage to MT would benefit FD, this could support the theory that he actually wants JD’s body to be found.

I refer to what was, IMO, a Freudian slip in his tv interview where he says “I keep hoping it (quickly corrects to ‘she’) will show up”. Said with his special smirk.

Ideal scenario for him, then, would have been for JD to “show up” dead at the hands of some stranger/project manager. That way FD bwould still benefit from the spousal entitlements AND be free to marry into MT’s shady clan. What’s the incentive for him to marry her, though? Currently it would be her silence, but back then when the deed was done, what?

IMO

he can put a BIG addition onto the Vail condo and sell it for $5,000,000