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

[Caroline Lago]

Are we following that case on WS? Maybe it would help with Jennifer’s case. Creatures of habit. No reason to reinvent the wheel for Dulos case if already have all the game book plays ready to implement. Hmmm.

I am visiting this site less frequently, day by day. I want Jennifer Dulos to be found so intensely and for her incredibly guilty (we know he did it) husband to be put behind bars. Where is she!!! That's what matters to me. Her children and family need to know if she is dead or alive. I don't really give a damn about so many things that are being discussed on this thread. If I'm frustrated, imagine the frustration of her family. Come on already!!

 

[afitzy]

"Simons’ lawyer Norm Pattis did not respond to multiple requests for comment."
Not possible!...

Haha! I did a double take when I read it too! Then I looked for some kind of revision or retraction etc. But, NO, it appears Atty P didn't respond. Wonder if that is what happens when you are deep upriver without a paddle? MOO

 

[Chicago54]

I was thinking about KM (yuck, I am a total glutton for punishment!) today as I tried to update his thread but there is no recent news on his spousal rape charge but his longstanding divorce case continues to chug along in a fashion that is eerily reminiscent of the Dulos divorce IMO (oddly enough Atty M. also has a divorce pending that looks to also be eerily reminiscent of the Dulos divorce too). I do wonder if all these guys bent on torturing their wives in divorce court met at some 'to be divorced dads' meet up group in Farmington, but I guess that is another question for another day!?!

Just keep thinking about possible people in FD orbit that could have been well positioned to help him with his quest for justice against JD and GF. It would have to be someone with perhaps flexible sense of ethical and moral boundaries IMO.

KM IMO gave FD a masterclass in how to abuse the CT Judicial system but I also wonder if KM might have helped FD with the 'alibi scripts' and perhaps even planning?

We saw FD well prepared when he went to NCPD and the entire game that played out with the iPhone and NCPD along with the FD statement about only giving the police what he wanted them to know etc. It seems like all this planning smacked of being driven by someone with more than a passing knowledge of the law IMO. This wasn't a script that came from watching Law and Order for years but involved a bit more knowledge than could be gleaned from simply watching TV IMO.

Last KM article that to me at least suggests that there might have been some 'tit for tat' trading of favours between KM and FD:
Former Fotis Dulos attorney accused of spousal rape, wanting his wife ‘dead’

MOO

ITA One theory I considered , within the “tit for tat” “Strangers on a Train” scenario, was once FD failed at action on KMs STBX, KM said I’m out, but did agree to be “alibi lawyer” on the 24th, and FD acted out KMs planned role instead.
Does that make sense?

 

[citygirl]

As always, can you translate and dumb it down for me?

Ooops. Quoted the wrong post!!!!
Was looking for you to translate the court posts!

 

[Bulldogs2]

The reason police first suspect the husband when a woman is murdered (particularly when they are separating) is not because it's convenient; it's because it is so common.

The most dangerous time for a woman is when going through separation/divorce, whether or not the man is involved with someone else.

Here are some interesting articles on men who've killed their wives.
“Husbands Who Choose Murder Over Divorce”
The Twisted Reasons Why Some Husbands Kill Their Wives

Omg

 

[Outforjustice]

I haven't researched the procedural issues behind this request but there is some reason that is above my pay grade w/o doing the research why this request must be made.

I thought it referred to FD fighting his foreclosure ?

 

[Outforjustice]

ITA One theory I considered , within the “tit for tat” “Strangers on a Train” scenario, was once FD failed at action on KMs STBX, KM said I’m out, but did agree to be “alibi lawyer” on the 24th, and FD acted out KMs planned role instead.
Does that make sense?

Yes . Makes sense

 

[Alathea]

The reason police first suspect the husband when a woman is murdered (particularly when they are separating) is not because it's convenient; it's because it is so common.

The most dangerous time for a woman is when going through separation/divorce, whether or not the man is involved with someone else.

Here are some interesting articles on men who've killed their wives.
“Husbands Who Choose Murder Over Divorce”
The Twisted Reasons Why Some Husbands Kill Their Wives

Too late to edit this post, but I meant to quote part of the first link:

"One more characteristic of these cases is the long delay before a conviction is obtained. But ... justice ultimately prevails.

“ 'Repeatedly in such cases, the defendants, who take for granted their public poise and ease at persuading others—and who, above all, enjoy a substantial degree of control over their situations and over people in their orbit—underestimate the strain they will face when being cross-examined by skilled prosecutors.' ”

"Hubris, says Lewis, is often their undoing."

 

[afitzy]

I thought it referred to FD fighting his foreclosure ?

Yes, this is the foreclosure action. It seems that the Plaintiff is asking the Defendants what their various defenses might be in the case.

 

[afitzy]

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=LYEVerhGM4Rvfgvc8dMU6Q==&fbclid=IwAR1ghKpOiNgwu71y3jwCmKtb5qy36C_Pn6grQDgmP-4lSkHnw-x-8SXvCFk

Buckle up for a heavy dose of 'word salad' and it all almost seems like a hypothetical argument on this Appellate Brief regarding the 'gag order' by Atty P. Perhaps a true 4:20 moment? IDK. MOO!

Quotes from the beginning of the motion - just to give a sense of what is to come:
"Can a man not yet accused of a crime [BBM] publicly criticize those investigating him"? [Refresh my memory here hasn't FD been accused TWICE of tampering and hindering - aren't these both considered "crimes"?]

"The answer was, until recently, without question yes".

"But comes now a ruling in a case arising out of the Judicial District of Stamford, in which a man suspected of murder [BBM], and his counsel, are bound by judicial order from speaking out". [We don't presently have a murder charge against FD, so its interesting to see Atty P talking about the suspicion of murder...LE could actually suspect many other things too other than murder AND the 'gag order' doesn't bar them from speaking out, it merely directs certain players in the case as to what can/cannot be discussed. Guess Atty P doesn't like to be 'directed' to do anything!].

And then IMO the delusion sets in and persecution theories rear their ugly heads:

"Simply put, there is no cause for the issuance of a prior restraint in this, or any, case where the presumption of innocence must do near-daily battle with the unfounded assertions of guilt" [BBM].

"The defense is exploring all hypotheses: The couple were involved in a bitter divorce and custody battle. A custody study was just completed". [BBM - I believe this is a direct reference to the infamous stolen psych report which Judge Heller has removed from the Family Court file as it was deemed inadmissible. I find it stunning that Atty P is yet again referring to the the document which FD stole and which he leaked to the Press and which was responsible for him being 'excused' from Family Court. This reference to the report IMO wasn't required in this motion and given its tainted history and the fact that sitting Judge on the case has stricken the report from the file you would think that perhaps this would send a message to Atty P to back off on public references to this report. But, No. He just cannot control himself from yet again referencing this tainted draft report. I do wonder if Judge Heller will follow up with sanctions for yet another prohibited reference to the report?].

Here's one for Judge Blawie. Judge Blawie specifically reprimanded Atty. P for saying in his prior motion that there was no discussion of the gag order motion. YET, in this latest document, Atty. P YET AGAIN states incorrectly Per Judge Blawie that there was no discussion. WHY say this when its absolutely incorrect and a falsehood? What a pure waste of court time yet again by Atty. P on a very basic yes/no type issue IMO. I do hope Judge Blawie sets the record straight in this very basic point of Atty P blatantly disregarding facts and simply stating what he conveniently believes to be true.

"The Court invited further briefing, and ruled-- without a hearing on the issues raised after full briefing, without argument, and without providing Mr. Dulos' counsel an opportunity to respond to the State's brief -- effectively directing counsel not to comment on the State's pending investigation of the disappearance of Ms. Dulos. After the ruling, Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz aired inflammatory accusations against Mr. Dulos, the ringleader, of course, being none other than America's favorite television prosecutor - Nancy Grace. Mr. Dulos sat mute, as his reputation was once again on direct attack" [BBM Looks like Atty P was a bit peeved about not being paid or consulted by these other shows! Whoever in an earlier post said that Atty. P is looking to get as much money and personal publicity as is humanly possible from this Dulos case might just be right.]

I could keep going but just wanted to give a sense of what this 'motion' such as it is, is all about. MOO

 

[Bulldogs2]

Just finished listening...NP, IMO, is most excited about testing the concept of prior-restraint of speech rather than the FD case.

Much more in that.....Morgan10028 probably comprehends better than I do.

MOST alarming is the fact NP says FD is entertaining various media offers for interviews, etc. FD will decide which he'll accept. Being paid for these "gigs"????

Wonder if MT was granted permission to make money also????

Book deal next...then movie

 

[afitzy]

ITA One theory I considered , within the “tit for tat” “Strangers on a Train” scenario, was once FD failed at action on KMs STBX, KM said I’m out, but did agree to be “alibi lawyer” on the 24th, and FD acted out KMs planned role instead.
Does that make sense?

Yes.

 

[Bulldogs2]

BBM. This has been bothering me for a long time. I will go and seek the interview and find the exact quote, but his wording struck me at the time as being odd and convoluted. Didn’t he say something like:
‘I had a beautiful life. I was living with someone with whom I was enamoured. That person, of course, was Michelle.’

I think they are just like each other . That’s why they do go together well. I don’t see her as dominant though.

 

[Bulldogs2]

Though CT is a small state, there are a lot of people that don't know much about this case. I follow it like crazy because it happened only 15 minutes away, to a woman close in age to me. There are plenty of people who don't watch the news or regular TV anymore...my own mom, who does watch the news, asked me if the "missing mom" was found, but hardly knows the details of this case as I do. I think a non-tainted jury could be found.

Agreed

 

[Chicago54]

Pattis filed a motion to quash both the deposition and request for information regarding how he is being paid (item 214).

Apparently the Judge believed that (214.86),
"The documents requested are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Prac. Book § 13-2. Accordingly, the court need not address the issues of privilege or confidentiality".

IDK whether Atty W has the ability to object to this order or not. But I'm also not clear from the wording in 214.86 whether the Judge quashed the request for the information but is still requiring the Atty. P deposition. The original Atty. P motion to quash was for BOTH the deposition and the document request.

Maybe someone else can answer this question?

Not an attorney, but I’m reading it as NP was quashed instead. I think he has to give docs.
Judge believes doc requested don’t even open door to admissible evidence , and since they wouldn’t be admissible then he doesn’t even need to discuss whether or not they breach privacy or confidentiality. In other words, if admissible evidence could be gained then he would consider if it breached.
But I’m not reading anything about deposition.

 

[Alathea]

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=LYEVerhGM4Rvfgvc8dMU6Q==&fbclid=IwAR1ghKpOiNgwu71y3jwCmKtb5qy36C_Pn6grQDgmP-4lSkHnw-x-8SXvCFk

Buckle up for a heavy dose of 'word salad' on this Appellate Brief regarding the 'gag order' by Atty P.

You call it word salad - while it is that, it's also packed with fluff and lies. He starts off:

"Can a man not yet accused of a crime..."
His client has been accused of a crime, and it's a very serious one. NP ignores the crimes his client has committed/been accused of as if they are nothing, and goes off on a ridiculous tangent.

"[The prosecution is] publicizing via inflammatory arrest warrants speculative conclusions about his guilt of the crime of murder to a media..."
The prosecution hasn't elaborated at all, but instead has simply stated facts - with photos to back them up.

I could go on, but it would fill up another thread. He's just a BS artist. That's what NP's good at: Going off on tangents as if they are valid, filling them with legal snips and trisyllabic words to try to impress and mislead people.

When you read the words, you realize they're mostly fluff.

 

[Bulldogs2]

I thought so too. Now, I'm not so sure.

But the case will have to be tried in CT and CT is a tiny state so why taint the jury pool. Maybe he will opt to forgo jury trial? Would a bench trial benefit his situation and is it even possible? IDK.

MT wants a jury trial according to Atty. B. and Atty. B blessedly hasn't been speaking.

MO

I agree with the poster who said they likely could find a non tainted jury. The news isn’t reporting much on this anymore and there are people who don’t know much about the case. I’ve asked some people and a few don’t know

 

[HopeForTheBest]

I am visiting this site less frequently, day by day. I want Jennifer Dulos to be found so intensely and for her incredibly guilty (we know he did it) husband to be put behind bars. Where is she!!! That's what matters to me. Her children and family need to know if she is dead or alive. I don't really give a damn about so many things that are being discussed on this thread. If I'm frustrated, imagine the frustration of her family. Come on already!!

I can see what you mean but I feel like these other issues keep the thread going and they can help unravel the rest, in MOO. I am not at all versed in the many technicalities discussed related to court filings and FD’s duplicitous actions in virtually everything he did, it seems to me, but I feel like talking about these subjects keeps the light on, so to speak, so that our family and friends never look here and think everyone’s forgotten or given up. I know that whether or not people post here, so many always do and will care deeply about JD and this case, but I just feel like this is something I can do, as small as it is. That’s just me, of course, and the good thing is that with so many of us, the thread continues. I feel like we learn from each new review, such as when a new person posts or someone returns. MOO, of course!

 

[HopeForTheBest]

You call it word salad - while it is that, it's also packed with fluff and lies. He starts off:

"Can a man not yet accused of a crime..."
His client has been accused of a crime, and it's a very serious one. NP ignores the crimes his client has committed/been accused of as if they are nothing, and goes off on a ridiculous tangent.

"[The prosecution is] publicizing via inflammatory arrest warrants speculative conclusions about his guilt of the crime of murder to a media..."
The prosecution hasn't elaborated at all, but instead has simply stated facts - with photos to back them up.

I could go on, but it would fill up another thread. He's just a BS artist. That's what NP's good at: Going off on tangents as if they are valid, filling them with legal snips and trisyllabic words to try to impress and mislead people.

When you read the words, you realize they're mostly fluff.

Big or small, words just shouldn’t be used to mislead or wound, in my opinion. And people tune out eventually when they realize it’s all just puff and circumventing.

 

[afitzy]

Not an attorney, but I’m reading it as NP was quashed instead. I think he has to give docs.
Judge believes doc requested don’t even open door to admissible evidence , and since they wouldn’t be admissible then he doesn’t even need to discuss whether or not they breach privacy or confidentiality. In other words, if admissible evidence could be gained then he would consider if it breached.
But I’m not reading anything about deposition.

I'm confused about what the Judge did say with the order. I agree with you on the deposition as it wasn't mentioned in the order either. Will try to get more info so we have the correct info.