Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #39

[pernickety]

IIRC it was never reported what he said, but quite sure LE inquired about it.

IMO the poison ivy holds the clue on where he was. It could even be associated with that wood chip they found in JF’s Suburban along with the (partial?) footprint in there.

Was anyone in LE qualified to diagnose poison ivy? Did they call in a dermatologist to determine if it could be some other kind of skin irritation? Did anyone at the barbecue FD attended with MT before their arrest notice the rash?

 

[Tink56]

Invited this poster to the party:

Good day from the carolinas.

There is a record, somewhere, of the 2 cars that Fd had overnighted to New Jersey from Greece, right?

JMHO YMMV

What a great person to add to the discussion of this case @Laughing!

Would love her view on the puzzling and frustrating experience I had finding information about Ioannis/Yannis Toutziaridis and Andreas Toutziaridis.

One day the there were multiple of articles in the Greek press about their Pot and Pan catering business and the Greek refugee crisis, then I was unable to repeat the search and received "strange" messages from Google that I had accessed the address too many times, then the articles seem to have vanished. All in the space of 12-24 hours. Amazing. Seems the Touts were accused of overcharging the EU for meals delivered to the refugees. It was no small amount. The accusations made included millions of dollars.

This caused me to wonder about the Touts sending money to the U.S. through HF account to FD. Wonder if the money was taking a bath???

MOO...IMO

 

[Tink56]

What did MT believe she was getting in FD? Did she believe he was loaded with money? Did she believe his FORE was a profitable legitimate business? Was she privy to his financial shenanigans? Did FD convince her he would/could take care of her? And...did she convince her family he was loaded with wealth? Did they believe FD would/could provide financially for MT, thus taking her off their hands, financially? Just so many questions about the thought processes of these players. MOO

And, it's interesting that Attorney Weinstein, in the civil trial concerning Fd's financial dealings with the Farbers, showed proof that Fd's relationship with MT went back at least to 2015...two years before JFd filed for divorce. This information concerned Fd and MT traveling together....who knows when Fd first started wooing the lovely Latin lass in Florida, all with her family's blessing while they were both married to others. Mind boggling!
MOO...IMO

 

[pernickety]

IIRC it was never reported what he said, but quite sure LE inquired about it.

IMO the poison ivy holds the clue on where he was. It could even be associated with that wood chip they found in JF’s Suburban along with the (partial?) footprint in there.

Was anyone in LE qualified to diagnose poison ivy? Did they call in a dermatologist to determine if it could be some other kind of skin irritation? Did anyone at the barbecue FD attended with MT before their arrest notice the rash?

And, it's interesting that Attorney Weinstein in the civil trial concerning Fd's financial dealings with the Farbers, showed proof that Fd's relationship with MT went back at least to 2015...two years before JFd filed for divorce. This information concerned Fd and MT traveling together....who knows when Fd first started wooing the lovely Latin lass in Florida, all with her family's blessing while they were both married to others. Mind boggling!
MOO...IMO

Is that when attorney Pattis put his head in his hands at the trial?

 

[Misy]

Here’s two things I think are telling about Pattis:
1. The memorial. Many many times people put up a memorial for victims. It’s to honor, acknowledge and remember the victim(s). But Pattis says the purpose of this was to taunt FD. The memorial had nothing to do with FD and everything to do with Jennifer. Justice for Jennifer whatever the circumstances may have been. But Pattis says this was about FD not Jennifer. The reaction to this is skewed and suggests consciousness of guilt.
2. Pattis has said at least twice that I’ve heard about their “odds” of winning an aquittal. That sounds like a game play strategy to win rather than a belief in proving FDs innocence. It suggests that FD is not innocent but he likes their odds in being able to get him off.
MOO JMO
ETA... corrected to”acquittal “

 

[Tink56]

Was anyone in LE qualified to diagnose poison ivy? Did they call in a dermatologist to determine if it could be some other kind of skin irritation? Did anyone at the barbecue FD attended with MT before their arrest notice the rash?

Is that when attorney Pattis put his head in his hands at the trial?

It certainly was the moment that Norm was overcome with angst about his client's forthcoming reply.

 

[Tink56]

Here’s two things I think are telling about Pattis:
1. The memorial. Many many times people put up a memorial for victims. It’s to honor, acknowledge and remember the victim(s). But Pattis says the purpose of this was to taunt FD. The memorial had nothing to do with FD and everything to do with Jennifer. Justice for Jennifer whatever the circumstances may have been. But Pattis says this was about FD not Jennifer. The reaction to this is skewed and suggests consciousness of guilt.
2. Pattis has said at least twice that I’ve heard about their “odds” of winning a aquitttal. That sounds like a game play strategy to win rather than a belief in proving FDs innocence. It suggests that FD is not innocent but he likes their odds in being able to get him off.
MOO JMO
ETA... corrected to”acquittal “

IMO it's all a game to Attorney Pattis...I think he's even referred to the courtroom as a chess match. In interviews he's openly stated that the more time passes without finding JFd's body the better for his client's case. He never says there isn't a body to be found. He carefully states that without a body, "We don't know where Jennifer is."

He also refers and has referred to his client's "story." IMO, stories are things you read or tell children...now he says his client will tell his story to "12 good people" during the trial. He also told the press to be sure to come. He didn't add, "It will be a Zinger or as Sheldon would say, "Bazinga!"

 

[Megnut]

FD brought zip ties to 69 Welles.

Enough said.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Do we think FD is or isn't talking to his attorneys?

Is he playing dumb or dumber still, spinning a ridiculous tale?

Which is altogether different than the ridiculous tail.

JMO

 

[TinTX]

I haven’t completely caught up on all posts (this may have been discussed). Is there any chance that the FB names that were shamelessly called-out during the hearing connected to the ‘home intruder’ story?

 

[oceancalling]

How did LE ascertain that FD had poison ivy and on what part of his anatomy? Could he have put calamine lotion on his arms to cover up scratches or other marks and tell them he had poison ivy?

It was noticed when he was booked into the jail, as was his shaved head. Plus, there was a body search warrant-I had forgotten that warrant!

The rash was definitely on his arms, but I do not know if it was discovered elsewhere on his body. Even if there had been no warrant, the folks in booking would have noted distinguishing features like tattoos, birthmarks, piercing, etc., as this kind of information comes in very handy to LE.

FD is obviously allergic to poison ivy. Those rashes are fairly distinguishable, because they cause blisters and skin weeping, etc. I suspect we are going to see pictures of Dulos' rash , and it will be interesting to see how Coangelo ties it to Dulos' activities on the day he murdered Jennnifer.

I hope those blisters made his life miserable, and every time he scratched them he was reminded what a cold-blooded murderer he is.

 

[Nanobody]

I haven’t completely caught up on all posts (this may have been discussed). Is there any chance that the FB names that were shamelessly called-out during the hearing connected to the ‘home intruder’ story?

I believe that he specified that the person who talked their way into Fd's home was a man but he only listed women's names in court.

 

[Megnut]

I'm just wondering if they're going with "he did this but they can't prove it" (as if) or "he did this but the police work violated his rights so he needs to be acquitted" (as if) or if, high out of their minds "he didn't do this. " (yes, he did.)

It'll never happen but let's pretend somehow NP gets FD's phone thrown out (you know, the one he voluntarily handed over, the one he voluntarily unlocked, the one he later said he wanted LE to have). With it goes the Odyssey of Stupidity and all evidence gained therein. He's STILL GOING DOWN FOR THIS CRIME. We got ourselves bus cams, and the Mercier, we've got his DNA in JF's house, we've got means, motive and opportunity, we've got an alibi that doesn't check out. Rock solid circumstantial case IMO.

Not only was this a premeditated murder, this was LOOOOOONG premeditated. I have to believe the planning began as a revenge fantasy that morphed like Devil's spawn into a revenge plan. That tells me he had a disposal site in mind for, potentially, YEARS. He doesn't have the DISCIPLINE, IMO, to keep a rich idea like that in his head. Remember, he told JF his other revenge fantasies. What horrifying details did the velvet lover pillow-whisper to his paramour? She's been around for as much as FIVE YEARS. Maybe she doesn't KNOW where JF is, but I bet she has A PRETTY GOOD IDEA.

And KM, he's got to know plenty.

Question. If he flips, will we know before trial?

Could be, he already has.

JMO

 

[oceancalling]

FD brought zip ties to 69 Welles.

Enough said.

JMO

Exactly. There is ample evidence of premeditation.

 

[sds71]

I believe that he specified that the person who talked their way into Fd's home was a man but he only listed women's names in court.

He put ads on CL with his name, address and number.
I wonder what he thought would happen.

 

[Boxer]

It was noticed when he was booked into the jail, as was his shaved head. Plus, there was a body search warrant-I had forgotten that warrant!

The rash was definitely on his arms, but I do not know if it was discovered elsewhere on his body. Even if there had been no warrant, the folks in booking would have noted distinguishing features like tattoos, birthmarks, piercing, etc., as this kind of information comes in very handy to LE.

FD is obviously allergic to poison ivy. Those rashes are fairly distinguishable, because they cause blisters and skin weeping, etc. I suspect we are going to see pictures of Dulos' rash , and it will be interesting to see how Coangelo ties it to Dulos' activities on the day he murdered Jennnifer.

I hope those blisters made his life miserable, and every time he scratched them he was reminded what a cold-blooded murderer he is.

Poison Ivy:
MOO two possibilities.
1. He got it moving or going through foliage.
2. He rubbed it on scratches to disguise them.

 

[Canchance]

Here’s two things I think are telling about Pattis:
1. The memorial. Many many times people put up a memorial for victims. It’s to honor, acknowledge and remember the victim(s). But Pattis says the purpose of this was to taunt FD. The memorial had nothing to do with FD and everything to do with Jennifer. Justice for Jennifer whatever the circumstances may have been. But Pattis says this was about FD not Jennifer. The reaction to this is skewed and suggests consciousness of guilt.
2. Pattis has said at least twice that I’ve heard about their “odds” of winning an aquittal. That sounds like a game play strategy to win rather than a belief in proving FDs innocence. It suggests that FD is not innocent but he likes their odds in being able to get him off.
MOO JMO
ETA... corrected to”acquittal “

Wasn’t the memorial put up by his house in Farmington? Not that I oppose that at all! I suppose he believes that’s why it’s taunting. Is there a memorial anywhere else?

 

[oceancalling]

Do we think FD is or isn't talking to his attorneys?

Is he playing dumb or dumber still, spinning a ridiculous tale?

Which is altogether different than the ridiculous tail.

JMO

I believe he is lying to his lawyers, but they are allowing him to lie. IMO the "guiding hand of counsel" is sorely lacking in this case. The objective evidence compels one conclusion, which is that Dulos planned in advance to murder Jennifer. If Dulos confessed to Pattis, and then tried to take the stand to say he did not murder Jennifer, however, Pattis could not ethically participate in that fraud on the court. Consequently, Pattis does not want the truth from his client.

There are many ways that each state Bar association deals with this particular dilemma, but make no mistake. Each Bar association has consequences if a lawyer knowingly uses perjured testimony. A lawyer can lose their license if they do. IMO this ethical obligation has kept many a high-profile defendant from testifying in their defense.

What does that mean in this case? Again, IMO, it means Pattis does not want Duos to tell him what happened, because "ignorance is bliss." I would not be surprised if he did not affirmatively tell Dulos that he did not want to discuss whether Dulos actually committed this murder.

What he is doing instead is trying to poke holes in the State's case, to create reasonable doubt. Before trial, he will try unsuccessfully to suppress the information taken from the cellphone as an unlawful search, and then argue the subsequently issued warrants and evidence were "fruits of the poisonous tree." He will challenge the forensic evidence, and argue to the jury that is was not properly retrieved, stored or analyzed. He will impugn the character of LE, claiming the investigators had already convicted his client and did not properly investigate this case. If Dulos' co-defendants flip, he will try to impeach them with their prior statements to LE, and claim they, too, have a motive to lie. Perhaps he will continue to argue, foolishly, that no body equals no murder.

He may not present any evidence at all, claiming the State's case is too weak to require a defense, or he may call some witnesses to rebut parts of the Coangelo's case. There will be no vigorous presentation of substantive evidence about the crime itself because no such evidence exists. He will employ a Chinese water torture approach, nitpicking each admitted piece of evidence, while never acknowledging the whole. He may call character witnesses to testify what a peaceful, loving, non-violent man is client is. He most certainly will attempt to portray Jennifer in the worst light possible. As for the Gone Girl defense? He might present it, at great risk to his client.

What NP will NOT do (IMO) is call Dulos to the stand. Why? Dulos is going to make an absolutely horrible witness. He has an arrogant demeanor; his face completely gives him away; he has zero empathy for his dead wife - in fact, he cannot hide his hatred of her, even now; he can be impeached with those awful interviews, which he made freely and voluntarily, while not in the custody of LE; and I believe even his desecration of the memorial for Jennifer could be the subject of cross-examination.

No, Dulos isn't going anywhere near a witness stand and his lawyer knows it. That is why you are seeing his tortured efforts to defend his client. It is, frankly, embarrassing to watch. As each new piece of evidence is revealed, NP gets louder but less effective. He even caused LE to investigate-and disprove-that stupid alibi by running his mouth about it prematurely! His latest attack about those FB posts was about as low as it goes.

I am not sure who the jury will dislike more, Dulos or his lawyer. IME jurors take their obligations very seriously, but they want to see evidence presented in a logical manner. In many ways, the fact that this is, at least so far, a case heavy on forensics will actually help the prosecution. Given the proliferation of crime shows/podcasts, jurors have come to expect strong forensics in murder cases, and they are going to hear a lot of such evidence here. Jurors love forensic evidence for a reason. People lie. Forensic evidence doesn't.

This case has been meticulously investigated and it shows. Whether or not Dulos has told his lawyer the truth will soon become irrelevant.

 

[spaz1959]

I think she’s protecting her Mother.
Also, two of the cases Bowman cited in his Obj to her Deposition involved racketeering and falsifying documents.
That’s sounds like something her Mom would be involved in.

You really think her mother is involved in that capacity? Not that her Mother gets to wear a moral victory sash, surely her mother knows the difference between her charges, and her daughter MT?

 

[spaz1959]

I believe he is lying to his lawyers, but they are allowing him to lie. IMO the "guiding hand of counsel" is sorely lacking in this case. The objective evidence compels one conclusion, which is that Dulos planned in advance to murder Jennifer. If Dulos confessed to Pattis, and then tried to take the stand to say he did not murder Jennifer, however, Pattis could not ethically participate in that fraud on the court. Consequently, Pattis does not want the truth from his client.

There are many ways that each state Bar association deals with this particular dilemma, but make no mistake. Each Bar association has consequences if a lawyer knowingly uses perjured testimony. A lawyer can lose their license if they do. IMO this ethical obligation has kept many a high-profile defendant from testifying in their defense.

What does that mean in this case? Again, IMO, it means Pattis does not want Duos to tell him what happened, because "ignorance is bliss." I would not be surprised if he did not affirmatively tell Dulos that he did not want to discuss whether Dulos actually committed this murder.

What he is doing instead is trying to poke holes in the State's case, to create reasonable doubt. Before trial, he will try unsuccessfully to suppress the information taken from the cellphone as an unlawful search, and then argue the subsequently issued warrants and evidence were "fruits of the poisonous tree." He will challenge the forensic evidence, and argue to the jury that is was not properly retrieved, stored or analyzed. He will impugn the character of LE, claiming the investigators had already convicted his client and did not properly investigate this case. If Dulos' co-defendants flip, he will try to impeach them with their prior statements to LE, and claim they, too, have a motive to lie. Perhaps he will continue to argue, foolishly, that no body equals no murder.

He may not present any evidence at all, claiming the State's case is too weak to require a defense, or he may call some witnesses to rebut parts of the Coangelo's case. There will be no vigorous presentation of substantive evidence about the crime itself because no such evidence exists. He will employ a Chinese water torture approach, nitpicking each admitted piece of evidence, while never acknowledging the whole. He may call character witnesses to testify what a peaceful, loving, non-violent man is client is. He most certainly will attempt to portray Jennifer in the worst light possible. As for the Gone Girl defense? He might present it, at great risk to his client.

What NP will NOT do (IMO) is call Dulos to the stand. Why? because Dulos is going to make an absolutely horrible witness. He has an arrogant demeanor; his face completely gives him away; he has zero empathy for his dead wife - in fact, he cannot hide his hatred of her, even now; he can be impeached with those awful interviews, which he made freely and voluntarily, while not in the custody of LE; and I believe even his desecration of the memorial for Jennifer could be the subject of cross-examination.

No, Dulos isn't going anywhere near a witness stand and his lawyer knows it. That is why you are seeing his tortured efforts to defend his client. It is, frankly, embarrassing to watch. As each new piece of evidence is revealed, NP gets louder but less effective. He even caused LE to investigate-and disprove-that stupid alibi by running his mouth about it prematurely! His latest attack about those FB posts was about as low as it goes.

I am not sure who the jury will dislike more, Dulos or his lawyer. IME jurors take their obligations very seriously, but they want to see evidence presented in a logical manner. In many ways, the fact that this is, at least so far, a case heavy on forensics will actually help the prosecution. Given the proliferation of crime shows/podcasts, jurors have come to expect strong forensics in murder cases, and they are going to hear a lot of such evidence here. Jurors love forensic evidence for a reason. People lie. Forensic evidence doesn't.

This case has been meticulously investigated and it shows. Whether or not Dulos has told his lawyer the truth will soon become irrelevant.

Beatifully stated Oceancalling!