Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #36

[peace9274]

Sorry, what is PRN?

PRN = As the occasion arises; as needed

 

[Midwestmom2019]

It can never be an even fight with a psychopath. But JD had tons of money and great attorneys. Are you saying the judge favored FD and was biased against Jennifer?

Please take a look at the docket and the orders in this case and tell us exactly what the judge did wrong and what she could’ve have done differently to prevent murder.

I’m not looking for a discussion any further. And it’s not the murder I’m posting about but the legal proceedings.
You have your opinions, most of which I agree with. I have mine, and had I been the judge I would have put his behind in jail as long as it took to get ALL of the court orders complied with early on.
Like I said, when I’ve seen non-complying parties held in contempt, fined AND JAILED, it’s amazing how quickly things begin to move along to a resolution.

 

[sds71]

Can he get any traction with this? Not familiar with lack of Grand Jury violating Fifth Amendment rights - is this a Pattis attempt at more "foolery" as someone said earlier. Love that word - foolery!

not sure
I think NP has it written in his contract he has to bring up the 5th Amendment
in every case
JK

HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT'S INDICTING GRAND JURY

Before November 1982, Connecticut's constitution required a grand jury indictment as a prerequisite to the prosecution of anyone charged with a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment. This right to a grand jury determination of probable cause had its origin in our early statutory and common law and became part of our constitutional rights when the first state constitution was adopted in 1818 (Nahum & Schatz, “The Grand Jury in Connecticut,” 5 Conn. B.J. 111-21 (1931)). Although originally conceived as a shielding device to protect individuals from unfounded prosecutions, the grand jury system came to be widely criticized for its secret operation and its ex parte nature (“Connecticut Grand Juries: The Case for Reform,” 54 Conn. B.J. 8, 9-16 (1980)).

In Connecticut, an accused was permitted to attend the grand jury session and to question witnesses. However, he was not permitted to present evidence in his own behalf or to be represented by counsel. In addition, in order to preserve the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, the law carefully limited the use of the transcript of the session.

The statutory shield to the grand jury transcript meant that a person against whom an indictment had been returned was effectively precluded from obtaining court review of the evidentiary basis of the indictment. Under CGS § 54-45a(b), the grand jury “may not be used as evidence in any proceeding against the accused except for the purpose of impeaching a witness, attacking the credibility of a witness or proving inconsistent statements of a witness.” Such transcript may also be used as evidence in a prosecution for perjury committed by a witness while giving such testimony.

To try to correct these problems with the grand jury system and to provide more protections to an accused charged with a serious crime, the legislature in 1981 proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish the grand jury indictment system in Connecticut and to replace it with an open and adversarial probable cause hearing (Substitute House Joint Resolution No. 36 (1981)). The voters approved this proposed amendment on November 2, 1982. The secretary of the state certified it on November 24, 1982, as Amendment Seventeen to the Connecticut Constitution (State v. Sanabria, 192 Conn. 671 (1984)).

In 1983, PA 83-210 limited the statutory requirement of a grand jury indictment for crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment to make it applicable only to people charged with such crimes before May 26, 1983. It imposed the probable cause hearing requirement for people charged after May 25, 1983 (CGS §§ 54-46 and 54-46a (1983)).

 

[Alethea]

I believe Jennifer was dead, no matter what the court did here.

I recall the case of Darren Mack, who was also going through a contentious divorce with a terrified wife. She was scared to death that he would find out where she lived.

Ultimately, the judge ordered that he pay child support and alimony. His response was to stab his wife to death in her garage, and shoot the judge.

Psychopaths don’t care about court orders, and they aren’t worth the paper they are written on. In some cases, the court order is literally the motive for murder.

People want to believe that there is a simple solution to cases like this, and tragedies are easily preventable. Where there is a will, there is a way, even when it comes to murder.

Give her full custody. Grant her a restraining order. Still dead.

Yes! I have been following but not posting. Blaming the Judge is like blaming the referee. It’s nice to have someone easy to scapegoat but MOST judges want to be fair and follow precedent and not get overruled. It’s the lawyers who drive the train in terms of what to move for or what emergency relief to seek.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

It can never be an even fight with a psychopath. But JD had tons of money and great attorneys. Are you saying the judge favored FD and was biased against Jennifer?

Please take a look at the docket and the orders in this case and tell us exactly what the judge did wrong and what she could’ve have done differently to prevent murder.

I’m not looking for a discussion any further. And it’s not the murder I’m posting about but the legal proceedings.
You have your opinions, most of which I agree with. I have mine, and had I been the judge I would have put his behind in jail as long as it took to get ALL of the court orders complied with early on.
Like I said, when I’ve seen non-complying parties held in contempt, fined AND JAILED, it’s amazing how quickly things begin to move along to a resolution.

 

[Jen3135]

Anything can happen with joint accounts. Whatever size the check is for, all rules are the same except for how long it takes a check to clear. Check doesn't even have to be signed. Just write For Deposit Only and account number on the back. Once it's in joint account, it's fair game for either signer to do what they wish. There are no restrictions on joint accounts. This is not the bank's problem or the court's problem. This is a Midler problem. IMO.

When I was a Bank Manager (for several different banks in Connecticut) we scrutinized the endorsements on large checks, especially insurance checks and tax refund checks for the exact scenario that a couple could possibly be in the midst of a divorce. You are not supposed to accept “for deposit only” the checks should have both signature if the names were joined by AND and not OR. Not to say some tellers are lax about it. But if an issue arose down the road and an endorsement was missing they would be on the hook.

Come to think of it, when someone had a mortgage on their house, and an insurance check was issued for some type of damage claim (if this is what FDs checks were for) the check would be made out to BOTH spouses AND the bank holding the mortgage. The (mortgage holding) bank would have to endorse the check as well and depending on dollar amount and amount of mortgage held, might require they send out an inspector to the house to confirm the repairs on the house were complete and up to code.

 

[Chloe_ee]

Can he get any traction with this? Not familiar with lack of Grand Jury violating Fifth Amendment rights - is this a Pattis attempt at more "foolery" as someone said earlier. Love that word - foolery!

LOL, that was me...foolery is one of my favorite words. It's ironic, because FD ruled his wife and children with an iron fist, and JD was clearly absolutely terrified of him, but to those of us on the outside, or to me anyway, he seems like a diminutive-foolish-neer'do'well-clown...and I am a woman.

 

[Alethea]

I’m not looking for a discussion any further. And it’s not the murder I’m posting about but the legal proceedings.
You have your opinions, most of which I agree with. I have mine, and had I been the judge I would have put his behind in jail as long as it took to get ALL of the court orders complied with early on.
Like I said, when I’ve seen non-complying parties held in contempt, fined AND JAILED, it’s amazing how quickly things begin to move along to a resolution.

If you put every party who didn’t perfectly comply with a court order in jail you’d need cells for half the litigants in this country. That’s why it doesn’t happen.

 

[bestill]

not sure
I think NP has it written in his contract he has to bring up the 5th Amendment
in every case
JK

HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT'S INDICTING GRAND JURY

Before November 1982, Connecticut's constitution required a grand jury indictment as a prerequisite to the prosecution of anyone charged with a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment. This right to a grand jury determination of probable cause had its origin in our early statutory and common law and became part of our constitutional rights when the first state constitution was adopted in 1818 (Nahum & Schatz, “The Grand Jury in Connecticut,” 5 Conn. B.J. 111-21 (1931)). Although originally conceived as a shielding device to protect individuals from unfounded prosecutions, the grand jury system came to be widely criticized for its secret operation and its ex parte nature (“Connecticut Grand Juries: The Case for Reform,” 54 Conn. B.J. 8, 9-16 (1980)).

In Connecticut, an accused was permitted to attend the grand jury session and to question witnesses. However, he was not permitted to present evidence in his own behalf or to be represented by counsel. In addition, in order to preserve the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, the law carefully limited the use of the transcript of the session.

The statutory shield to the grand jury transcript meant that a person against whom an indictment had been returned was effectively precluded from obtaining court review of the evidentiary basis of the indictment. Under CGS § 54-45a(b), the grand jury “may not be used as evidence in any proceeding against the accused except for the purpose of impeaching a witness, attacking the credibility of a witness or proving inconsistent statements of a witness.” Such transcript may also be used as evidence in a prosecution for perjury committed by a witness while giving such testimony.

To try to correct these problems with the grand jury system and to provide more protections to an accused charged with a serious crime, the legislature in 1981 proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish the grand jury indictment system in Connecticut and to replace it with an open and adversarial probable cause hearing (Substitute House Joint Resolution No. 36 (1981)). The voters approved this proposed amendment on November 2, 1982. The secretary of the state certified it on November 24, 1982, as Amendment Seventeen to the Connecticut Constitution (State v. Sanabria, 192 Conn. 671 (1984)).

In 1983, PA 83-210 limited the statutory requirement of a grand jury indictment for crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment to make it applicable only to people charged with such crimes before May 26, 1983. It imposed the probable cause hearing requirement for people charged after May 25, 1983 (CGS §§ 54-46 and 54-46a (1983)).

BBM - according to my interpretation his motion isn't going anywhere bassd on the BBM, but I'm no attorney.

Thanks for sharing this.

 

[Jen3135]

Actually .the check does not require the signature of Mr. & Mrs. on the back of the check IF and I mean IF....the teller determines that this check is going into an account that has ownership of the names on the check. The teller can stamp the back of the check with an endorsement guarantee stamp. This practice is used quite often. Stamp typically reads as follows: “Deposited to the account of the within named payee-Absence of endorsement guaranteed”.

The banks I worked for stopped using those stamps many years ago so they would be liable for the endorsement.

 

[MassGuy]

This is the least surprising thing in the world. Norm needs to make his way to a barber shop, and stop wasting his time filing pointless motions.

I just got off the phone with two other defense attorneys who say a grand jury indictment is only needed in special circumstances and that argument doesn’t apply here. @News12CT

Marissa Alter on Twitter

 

[amis]

He will definitely have a lot of time on his hands with his home arrest. You can only work out so much...

Dumb question - but is it legal for police to have tapped his phones or to see what he searches for on his computer when he is under house arrest?

 

[Boxer]

Sad but so true MG

The bicycle MOO is part of the ambush.
No car to tip Jd off that someone, or he was around.

 

[pseudo_hum]

This is the least surprising thing in the world. Norm needs to make his way to a barber shop, and stop wasting his time filing pointless motions.

I just got off the phone with two other defense attorneys who say a grand jury indictment is only needed in special circumstances and that argument doesn’t apply here. @News12CT

Marissa Alter on Twitter

Norm must be getting paid on motions filed.

 

[MassGuy]

The bicycle MOO is part of the ambush.
No car to tip Jd off that someone, or he was around.

Exactly. Before we ever saw the original arrest warrants, I figured he must have been dropped off.

When we did see those warrants, it was clear that he transported himself to the general area. From that point, he had to either jog, or ride a bike.

Now it’s clear that he did in fact use a bicycle, and did so in order to avoid putting himself directly at the scene.

Fortunately, he’s an idiot. Nice try.

 

[sds71]

@MarissaAlter

I don't think it will. One attorney told me he doesn't know why Norm would file this except to get his name in the news.

 

[aaron44]

The bicycle MOO is part of the ambush.
No car to tip Jd off that someone, or he was around.

I'm wondering why the bicycle didn't show up on the Welles camera that captured the Suburban. Also, where on Weed Street was the bicycle caught on the video? I'm wondering if Fd rode it down Indian Waters drive and came in through the woods. It's easier and less treacherous than taking Weed St to Frogtown. And he wouldn't have to time coming in through the front driveway and pass the cameras. IMO.

 

[MassGuy]

Norm must be getting paid on motions filed.

Ha! His briefcase must be filled with “IOU’s” from his formerly wealthy client.

To quote Dumb and Dumber:

Lloyd: “That's as good as money, sir. Those are I.O.U.'s. Go ahead and add it up, every cent's accounted for.”

 

[Love Never Fails]

If you put every party who didn’t perfectly comply with a court order in jail you’d need cells for half the litigants in this country. That’s why it doesn’t happen.

It should happen. Why have a law if there are no teeth to it?

 

[MassGuy]

@MarissaAlter

I don't think it will. One attorney told me he doesn't know why Norm would file this except to get his name in the news.

Ha! Called it!

What a narcissistic hack.