Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #44

[Tink56]

I posted this question in an earlier post then deleted it. In the beginning of this case when JFD was missing, was anything ever mentioned about her jewelry?

I would imagine she had beautiful exquisite pieces in her collection. Wonder where they are now?

Nosey Rose here is curious as to what was in the suitcase NP carried into the hospital? Had FD told NP if he ever got put in jail permanently to go to his house to collect certain items? How did NP know what or where to get these things?

Where did the contents of that suitcase go? Anna Curry was the only person we know of in the hospital room with FD. What was she to do with it?

This case is going to get more mysterious with FD gone. IMO.

NP may have had someone on his staff get things for AC for her hospital stay???

MOO

 

[BeckyF]

the bondsman fee of 6% has to be paid, that’s the cost of doing business with a bail bondsman, FD didn’t pay $6 million of his own cash to bond out, the bondsman did and charges for the service (per CT law)

Thank you!

 

[BeckyF]

DBM - duplicate

 

[Boxer]

Yes. Aiding/abetting/accomplice/accessory. They all fall under the conspiracy umbrella. Not sure if we are on the same page or not.

MOO the relevant thing to me is conspiracy and attempt belong together which means conspiracy stands as a crime even if the planned crime didn 't happen.

 

[Ruminations]

I will attempt an amateur explanation of bail and bond.

Bail is cash the imprisoning entity can hold. The person who paid the bail gets it back when the case is settled. It is cash to make it less likely a person will flee.

Some people have assets, but not a lot of cash. It may be difficult, for instance, to get home equity line of credit at the very moment your employment is jeopardized by charges and potential conviction.

Bond companies provide a service for which they charge a fee. They put up the cash for the bail. They do not want to be ripped off, so they “secure” the cash they put up by doing things like putting a lien on the house.

When the case is settled, the bond company gets their bail back, hopefully because the prisoner did not flee. Otherwise, they have to collect on their liens, etc.

Back to the fee. The fee is called the bond. It is not refundable. It is the charge for the service of putting up cash bail.

I think that is how it goes, and I don’t see how Anna Curry would be owed her (or allegedly her) money back or be relieved of paying the balance.

The only reason to relieve her might be compassion by the bond company, but they do exist to make a profit. If Pattis got the case dismissed on a technicality on the 30th, rather than an act of cowardice, the bond fee would still be owed.

 

[annekris]

If you have pipes winterized you can turn off water etc but you have to gain access to house and squatters will not let you in.

if anyone can look up CT squatters laws....I wonder how long CA has been in the house to say ‘this is her home’ or how much longer does she need to be there to say the same thing. Then FD relatives can stay as her guests and they can get squatters rights.

It was a long court battle for my friends, in laws, to get the squatter out of their house and then that squatter invited someone else to live there...now up to 2 squatters. It was about 18 month legal battle with forms, LE...and when the owner could get in the house with LE there and get all junk out, changed the locks etc, one squatter went through the dog door and some how managed to manipulate the locks from inside and tried to be a squatter all over....a neighbor spotted the illegal entry.

This will be no easy task for mortgage holder, LE etc to get these people out...if they are squatters. They are doing it to be spiteful IMO

They will be gone soon and LE can eject them if necessary, no eviction process is necessary IMO. AC and FD relatives are ‘transient guests’, not tenants, and therefore subject to ejection by law enforcement at any time. They do not have any rights as tenants such as an eviction process because they are not tenants; and squatters need 15 years of occupancy (see link below) to establish a case for squatters rights in CT. Since the property is in receivership the receiver could have the transient guests ejected by LE anytime but kindly gave them until Friday Feb 7 to wrap up their affairs.

this is interesting reading: “For example, a person who lived in his fiancée's home for several years and contributed to household expenses was held not to be a tenant because he paid no fixed amount as rent, had no fixed period of occupancy, and was in a romantic relationship with the homeowner which she could have terminated at any time (Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo, 109 Conn. App. 731, 740 (2008).”
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0069.htm

Statute on squatters aka ‘adverse possession’ https://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0032.htm

 

[citygirl]

they will be gone soon and LE can eject them if necessary, no eviction process is necessary IMO. AC and FD relatives are ‘transient guests’, not tenants, and therefore subject to ejection by law enforcement at any time. The do not have any rights as tenants such as eviction because they are not tenants; and squatters need 15 years of occupancy to establish a case for squatters rights in CT. Since the property is in receivership the receiver could have the transient guests ejected by LE anytime but kindly gave them until Friday Feb 7 to wrap up their affairs.

this is interesting reading: “For example, a person who lived in his fiancée's home for several years and contributed to household expenses was held not to be a tenant because he paid no fixed amount as rent, had no fixed period of occupancy, and was in a romantic relationship with the homeowner which she could have terminated at any time (Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palumbo, 109 Conn. App. 731, 740 (2008).”
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0069.htm

squatters rights in CT exist only after 15 years of

I am thinking GF bears no ill will toward FD's family.
I would suspect she understands their suffering.
Thus, she is giving them this week to grieve and gather themselves.
It's the humane thing to do and by all accounts she is a class act.
MOO.

 

[Leizl]

Your original quote:
The implication was that the conspiracy portion would no longer be a factor.

EXCEPT, there wasn't any implication of that in the video. The commentator only stated what defense lawyers would try. It is very clear about something according to CT law:

Am I An Accessory To A Connecticut Crime?
The following are not defenses to criminal liability in 53a-8

• That the person who actually committed the crime did not face prosecution or conviction.

It doesn't matter that FD is dead. The show goes on for MT and KM.

The definition of implication is a conclusion that can be drawn from something that isn't explicitly stated. Whether you agree or not, I believe the IMPLICATION of his words was that the conspiracy angle was out. See, you and I are allowed to draw different conclusions, one of us is right, and only time will tell who it is, but until this progresses further your opinion is not more valid than mine, and you have not said anything that I find so compelling that I am going to change my opinion.

 

[BellaVita]

MOO the relevant thing to me is conspiracy and attempt belong together which means conspiracy stands as a crime even if the planned crime didn 't happen.

OK. I'll take a stab at it. MT/KM are charged with conspiracy to murder. FD is charged with murder. That means the State believes they can prove murder. That they can prove JD is dead. There can also be be conspiracy for attempted murder. That's not what the state is going for. I wouldn't worry too much about it. The case really doesn't change because FD is dead. I also believe there is DNA in the garage we haven't heard about. Possibly a tooth knocked out or brain matter. MOO.

 

[BellaVita]

The definition of implication is a conclusion that can be drawn from something that isn't explicitly stated. Whether you agree or not, I believe the IMPLICATION of his words was that the conspiracy angle was out. See, you and I are allowed to draw different conclusions, one of us is right, and only time will tell who it is, but until this progresses further your opinion is not more valid than mine, and you have not said anything that I find so compelling that I am going to change my opinion.

However, it's not my opinion. It is CT law that the primary person charged does not need to face prosecution or conviction in order to bring conspirators to trial. It's not a conspiracy defense. The game doesn't change because FD is dead. All evidence introduced will be the same. I am trying to find out what, in your opinion, has changed due to the death of FD. Why would the trials be any different? I am curious what you are basing your conclusions on besides the implications you believe you heard on the video. The commentator said something along the lines of the defense would try to cast doubt that JD is dead. The defense was going to do that anyway most likely. I'm just not seeing how FD death affects anything.

 

[Leizl]

Taking emotion out of the equation here for a second, we have had any number of attys weigh (in the media and here on WS) in on this question and, given that today was a working day for the Courts, if Atty Colangelo and his team agreed with your POV on this matter we would expect to see charges dropped for Conspiracy to Commit murder for MT and KM. So far this hasn't happened. In fact, the MT upcoming Court Date for her plea remains on the docket (again no change) and she is expected to enter a plea of 'not guilty' to the charge of Conspiracy to Commit Murder.

We have read through the relevant sections of the CT Code now for 2 threads and if you could put your argument out there as to what you are seeing to support your POV it would be helpful. CT on conspiracy is somewhat different from other States too and I think this issue resulted in some early on confusion but I thought this had all been resolved.

MOO

I already explained why I thought conspiracy would be off the table earlier, and I don't really feel like rehashing it, if you are interested you can look back to page 1. Further, the Sunday morning viewpoint expressed by the former prosecutor in CT sounded to ME like it was probably off the table. Bella Vita had a different take on it, which is fine, because we are all just opinions here now. I just want to be afforded the respect that my opinion may differ from yours, which clearly it does. No one here actually knows what is going to happen.

 

[BluesClues0]

I think what's happening with the bail compony is that they gave FD the bail money using the house as collateral. So given that the house is under water, there is no collateral for the 270k. So basically they are in line for the proceeds, if any, from the estate. I'm not sure what this AC lady has to do with it except maybe she's the executor or beneficiary.

 

[Boxer]

OK. I'll take a stab at it. MT/KM are charged with conspiracy to murder. FD is charged with murder. That means the State believes they can prove murder. That they can prove JD is dead. There can also be be conspiracy for attempted murder. That's not what the state is going for. I wouldn't worry too much about it. The case really doesn't change because FD is dead. I also believe there is DNA in the garage we haven't heard about. Possibly a tooth knocked out or brain matter. MOO.

Yes, and the search results from MIRA and 80 MS have not been unsealed.

 

[Leizl]

However, it's not my opinion. It is CT law that the primary person charged does not need to face prosecution or conviction in order to bring conspirators to trial. It's not a conspiracy defense. The game doesn't change because FD is dead. All evidence introduced will be the same. I am trying to find out what, in your opinion, has changed due to the death of FD. Why would the trials be any different? I am curious what you are basing your conclusions on besides the implications you believe you heard on the video. The commentator said something along the lines of the defense would try to cast doubt that JD is dead. The defense was going to do that anyway most likely. I'm just not seeing how FD death affects anything.

OK, this is what has changed since FD died...........
State had what they believed to be a strong case against FD for murder of his wife.
State also had a case against the other 2 for various things involving them in what they believed was their strong case against FD.
The case they have against FD is just that, a case, until it is heard by a jury and judgement is handed down.
What that means is that in the eyes of the law FD has not committed a crime of murder of his wife UNTIL a jury of his peers hands down a guilty verdict.
Which is never going to happen now.
As the state can never PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that FD murdered his wife, they can't try other people they believe helped FD murder his wife
because they have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jennifer was murdered BY FD.
Because, while they have ample evidence she was murdered, until FD were to be convicted of it, he has the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
You can't be an accomplice to someone who murdered their wife if you can't prove that person actually murdered their wife.
To prove FD murdered his wife, there needs to be a trial, the prosecutors can't just have a strong belief that he did it.
To be an accomplice the actor needs to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have murdered his wife, the prosecutors can't just go to the judge and say "hey, we really really believe FD killed his wife and now we want to prosecute these 2 as accomplices, even though we never actually made our case that she was murdered and that FD was the one that did it, we are now going to prosecute these people for involvement in a murder we can't prove happened by someone that we can't prove did it.

I don't see why you are so hell bent on arguing with me, it is my opinion, and neither mine nor yours is going to change whatever the outcome is, nor is wishful thinking or arguing with me. so why not just respect that others have different perspectives and that it isn't your job to change my mind?

Editing to add: I have an example for you out of real life I just thought of. There was this kid in North Carolina Pazuzu Algarod who was going to be tried for murder, he killed himself while awaiting trial, and his girlfriend was tried and convicted as an accomplice, but there was a witness to the event of the murder, and a witness to her involvement. Under that circumstance certainly there would be no change in the charges, but without anything but circumstantial evidence tying these people to the crime and no possible way to convict FD I just don't think the conspiracy charges will stick. But we shall see, won't we?

 

[CTGrammy]

@MattCaronTV



Following the release of these photos where #FotisDulos attempted suicide, Attorney Norm Pattis responded with a statement. “This adds a level of scum to this case that is difficult to fathom.” The photos are courtesy Tea Leaf Realty who was appointed conservator.
@FOX61News

And NP sending the Fd Suicide Note to the Press was Not Scum???

Within Hours of the doctor pronouncing death???

Really???

IMO.

 

[afitzy]

OK. I'll take a stab at it. MT/KM are charged with conspiracy to murder. FD is charged with murder. That means the State believes they can prove murder. That they can prove JD is dead. There can also be be conspiracy for attempted murder. That's not what the state is going for. I wouldn't worry too much about it. The case really doesn't change because FD is dead. I also believe there is DNA in the garage we haven't heard about. Possibly a tooth knocked out or brain matter. MOO.

And a footprint....

 

[Southernsnooper]

I hope that LE, PI or someone is watching that house. I would not be surprised if the current occidental, AC and FD’s relatives did not pack up any and all remaining furniture, pictures and anything not nailed down and take it with them come Friday. They may even say they are moving out Friday but yet and leave in the middle of the night Wednesday or Thursday. If he out stuff up to see, so would they. (60 years ago my moms friend did such a thing)

As far as AC, she will drive off with one of the cars and so would FD’s family.

then on the other hand would they try the squatter rights law....does CT have any squatter rights laws? A person can visit and then claim squatters rights and stay and stay. It takes an act of God to get the out legally or a shot to the head. (And again a friends relatives did much a thing in MD....bad ending to that one. One dead, one now has only two fingers he can move. I really do have nice friends though.)

So either they will try to move out with all that is left on the house, try the squatter rights law if CT has them, or go peacefully which I doubt.

I am sure NP is advising them of all tricks to pull to avoid following the laws....that is MOO.

Imho that’s why LE took photos of every single room.

 

[kay74]

What I find preposterous in CT. is, he was charged with murder and then let out on bail! They should have kept him in jail. Now they never will find where Jennifer is. At least they would have had a chance if he entered a plea.

 

[BellaVita]

OK, this is what has changed since FD died...........
State had what they believed to be a strong case against FD for murder of his wife.
State also had a case against the other 2 for various things involving them in what they believed was their strong case against FD.
The case they have against FD is just that, a case, until it is heard by a jury and judgement is handed down.
What that means is that in the eyes of the law FD has not committed a crime of murder of his wife UNTIL a jury of his peers hands down a guilty verdict.
Which is never going to happen now.
As the state can never PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that FD murdered his wife, they can't try other people they believe helped FD murder his wife
because they have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jennifer was murdered BY FD.
Because, while they have ample evidence she was murdered, until FD were to be convicted of it, he has the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
You can't be an accomplice to someone who murdered their wife if you can't prove that person actually murdered their wife.
To prove FD murdered his wife, there needs to be a trial, the prosecutors can't just have a strong belief that he did it.
To be an accomplice the actor needs to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have murdered his wife, the prosecutors can't just go to the judge and say "hey, we really really believe FD killed his wife and now we want to prosecute these 2 as accomplices, even though we never actually made our case that she was murdered and that FD was the one that did it, we are now going to prosecute these people for involvement in a murder we can't prove happened by someone that we can't prove did it.

I don't see why you are so hell bent on arguing with me, it is my opinion, and neither mine nor yours is going to change whatever the outcome is, nor is wishful thinking or arguing with me. so why not just respect that others have different perspectives and that it isn't your job to change my mind?

Am I An Accessory To A Connecticut Crime?
Defenses to Accomplice Liability

• In any prosecution in which the criminal liability of the defendant is based upon the conduct of another person it shall be a defense that the defendant terminated his complicity prior to commission of the offense:
  • Wholly depriving it of effectiveness in the commission of the offense and
  • Manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of their criminal purpose

Those above are the defenses for conspiracy.

Guilty of Murder
The following are not defenses to criminal liability in 53a-8

• That the person who actually committed the crime did not face prosecution or conviction.
• Such other person is not guilty of the offense in question because such other person lacks criminal responsibility or legal capacity or awareness.
• That the offense in question can happen only by a particular class or classes of persons and the person acting as an accomplice does not belong to such class or classes, and, thus, is legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity.

The above outlines what are NOT defenses to conspiracy. According to law, FD does not have to be prosecuted or convicted of anything. The State does not have to convict FD. It was always a case within a case. All FD actions will be outlined explicitly during trial. Same as if he was alive. Jury decides whatever they decide, but there is no legal basis to drop charges just because FD is dead. There's just not.

 

[CTGrammy]

I cannot wait to hear what Judge White has to say to NP about continuing a murder trial with a dead defendant ...

I may just have to fly back home to be in the gallery for this hearing.

Nothing like seeing it First Hand.

IMO.