'Ole Atty. P. has had quite a day and some of his quotes today IMO have been shocking IMO.
We first heard him say that "Fd was executed". Fact Check: Not true. Fd chose death by suicide. We don't know why and can only speculate.
Then we heard this whopper:
“To those who contend that Mr. Dulos’ death reflects a consciousness of guilt, we say no. We say it was more a conscience overborne with the weight of a world that was too busy to listen and that wanted a story more than it wanted the truth.” [BBM]
The beginning of the bolded sentence is factually incorrect. There were people all around the world following this case with varying levels of intensity and they were absolutely listening. People IMO were listening and worked hard like the folks here to gather up information and review the information in 3 AWs. People were hungry for information and so searched it out from alternative sources and court documents. People were horrified that in a safe place like New Canaan that someone can be brutally murdered after dropping off her children at school.
Fd worked very hard over many years to create a huge volume of court records that told the public IMO so so much about him. IMO Atty. P. did zero to tell the public why his client might have been different from the court documents which told IMO a very compelling story.
Atty. P. instead chose to viciously attack the victim and the mother of his clients 5 children. Atty. P. chose to leak a stolen confidential and discredited psych report to the Press and then later claimed this report 'would save his client'. Atty. P. chose to repeat the 'alibi script' lies of his client for over 2 months and absolutely confused the public dialog on the case. Did Atty. P. do no diligence on the substance of the 'alibi scripts' in advance of hearing they were lies created by his client as disclosed in AW2? The irony of having the lies spouted by an attorney and his minion in the Press is sublime and done with no retractions no less.
The State Prosecutor in this case to my knowledge has not once made a statement or had a press conference about this case (there was a very short 'no comment' issued months ago outside Atty Bowmans office if I recall to the Press). The State let the AWs and the SWs tell a story here and people read them and the press wrote about them. Atty Colangelo hasn't said anything but via the AWs IMO sought to take apart the public dialog of Pattisville piece by piece in a very effective manner and Atty. P. had zero comeback ever. No wonder his client looked to be out of sorts at the recent emergency hearing regarding the memorial dismantling and decision to violate the terms of his release.
So, who did the worldwide press audience largely listen to in this case since 5/19? We heard 2x from Fd in press interviews (Sarah Wallace and Dateline) and then 7+ months of Atty. P. and the rest of Pattisville attorneys. Atty. P. had a worldwide audience in the palms of his hands and what did he choose to do? He chose to spend most of his time throwing out random theories (6 in particular) that were only loosely connected to facts relevant to the case and he then combined this with putting the missing (murdered) JFd on trial in a long, disrespectful and largely factually incorrect series of soundbites and 'daily exclusives'. IMO it was a shameful display that did neither his client nor Atty. P. any credit, but that is just how he rolls and rolls and rolls.
BUT, Atty. P., representing Fd, undertook a very broad and very far reaching media campaign to NOT speak about his client, alternative theories or frankly much of anything of substance related to Fd. Alternative theory. Nope. Alibi. Nope, 2 of those at least down the drain and so it didn't happen. Atty. P. did zero IMO to further positive dialog about his client.
Instead the worldwide public was treated to a shame and blame the victim campaign that was unprecedented, deeply upsetting to many and absolutely disrespectful to the friends, family and children of JFd IMO. JFd in the eyes of many was a longstanding victim of DV and yet when her late husband removed a memorial near his house (the purple ribbons were reported to have been particularly offensive to Fd), Atty. P. couldn't see why this situation was seen as being so offensive to so many people that care about justice for JFd and so he dismissed the claims and said instead that his client was being 'taunted' by detractors and Jennifer supporters.
The situation with the entire Atty. P. legal strategy became, using his own word here "DIRE", that Judge Blawie issued a very well crafted IMO 'gag order' to make sure that Fd got a fair trial in CT. IMO the gag order from Judge Blawie did more to assist the Fd defense than virtually anything presented by Atty. P. I'm ok with this because it protected Fd from what his counsel was doing on rinse and repeat over a long period of time. So, thank you for this Judge Blawie!
I wish I had tracked the press column inches and press hours that Atty. P. used to undertake this vicious and IMO largely unproductive campaign in support of his client. But, a quick google search will show the huge press impact that Atty. P. and Pattisville created. But, what did it get him and his client? IMO about zero and it resulted in a possibly despondent client that felt he had no other option than to end his life by gassing himself.
But, did the Atty. P. campaign have the results intended to create reasonable doubt for their client Fd?
I would argue that the Atty. P. campaign was probably one of the most ineffective and certainly cost inefficient defences seen in quite awhile in a major case. We saw this campaign consume Atty. P. and on and off 4 other attorneys, and things aren't done yet. I do wonder if Atty. P. has the capacity to look at his choices made over the last 7 months and see whether he served his client and did his victim shame/blame on rinse and repeat day after day accomplish anything other than significant billable hours?
IMO there are many tragedies here from the loss of JFd, the impacted families and yes the loss of Fd, who should IMO have had his day in Court for the crimes alleged against him. Fd won't get that experience because he chose to take his own life and yes in my mind this is a tragedy too. The premature loss of Fd might be a blessing for the Farber family and the 5 children but its an odd feeling sort of justice that I'm not sure sits well with many.
Experts have difficulty predicting suicide risk but I cannot help but think that the most significant person and group of people that surrounded Fd these past 7 months were his legal team led by Atty. P. and IMO something happened in/around the time of the bond revocation hearing that drastically changed his outlook on his future to the point of not believing a future of his liking existed. IMO the only person that perhaps knows the answer to this is also the same person that is now asking the State of CT to try a dead person, which in my mind is yet another tragedy in a long series of tragedies which oddly enough all are tied to a single person who made a series of decisions as to how best to represent his client. But did he? IDK.
I don't think I've ever written a post about a defense strategy like this one before. Probably won't again, but I felt that what we saw play out here was in so many respects not serving the defendant well at all. I wanted Fd to have his day in court to defend himself and a vigorous defense on his behalf but oddly we never saw that on his behalf IMO.
MOO
