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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tink56 said:
From the Stamford Advocate (It's an "insider" story, so I've abbreviated it here...:
STAMFORD — Now that Fotis Dulos will not stand trial for murder in the death of his wife, defense attorneys say the state’s attention has nowhere to turn but to his alleged accomplices.

“They are in a jackpot load of trouble,” said Westport criminal litigator Neal Rogan.

And as the glare intensifies on ex-girlfriend Michelle Troconis and former attorney Kent Mawhinney, both find themselves with substantially weaker hands to play against what could be convictions and harsh sentences......CUT TO....

“If Fotis Dulos is unavailable she will take the greater weight because I don’t think the state will just let this wither away,” said Rogan.

Both Troconis and Mawhinney are accused of conspiring with Dulos to kill his estranged wife, and and mother of their five children, last May in New Canaan. Mawhinney, 55, is currently being held at the Cheshire Correctional Institution unable to post a $2 million court appearance bond. Troconis, 45, also facing charges of tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution, has posted a $2.1 million bond.

Several attorneys and other case-watchers had speculated that prosecutors would turn to Troconis to compensate for one vulnerability they had in their case — the fact that Jennifer Dulos’ body has never been located.

“Without Troconis putting the pieces of the puzzle together there was always the possibility of a hung jury,” said Stamford litigator Mark Katz.

Discala said he now can’t see Richard Colangelo, the lead prosecutor on the case, offering Troconis much of a deal, even if she knows where the body is.

“Had he been available for trial she would be in a much better position to offer anything she knows about the location of the body, if there was a murder,” Discala said.
With loss of top defendant, focus to shift in Dulos case
Click to expand...

“if there was a murder,” Discala said. IF?
 
Tink56 said:
From the Stamford Advocate (It's an "insider" story, so I've abbreviated it here...:
STAMFORD — Now that Fotis Dulos will not stand trial for murder in the death of his wife, defense attorneys say the state’s attention has nowhere to turn but to his alleged accomplices.

“They are in a jackpot load of trouble,” said Westport criminal litigator Neal Rogan.

And as the glare intensifies on ex-girlfriend Michelle Troconis and former attorney Kent Mawhinney, both find themselves with substantially weaker hands to play against what could be convictions and harsh sentences......CUT TO....
Click to expand...
 
Memorials to a man who proclaimed his innocence in a murder case to the end were put up outside his property in Farmington.

Fotis Dulos died on Thursday, two days after he initially tried to kill himself.
Over the weekend, memorials for the father of five popped up near his Jefferson Crossing mansion, not far from those put up for his estranged wife, Jennifer Farber Dulos.

Dulos was charged a month ago with murdering Farber Dulos. He was able to post his $6 million bond.
Since then, he was under strict house arrest at his Farmington home.
One of the reasons the house arrest was so strict was because Dulos was seen removing the memorials to Farber Dulos from just outside of his property. A judge ruled that his actions were a violation of the conditions of his release.

Memorials to Fotis Dulos added to those near Farmington property
 
Just wondering, does anyone know if FD's family is currently staying at the house? I believe GF's motion for receiver was granted on Friday. I read there is a hearing via phone call today but curious if the family is allowed in the house. Thanks.
 
MollyDDD said:
Speaking of which, is there anything GF’s lawyers can do to spark an investigation into NP’s possibly nefarious involvement in FD’s bond issues along with AC?
Click to expand...
Poor lady, not another investigation for her? I am so glad that the biggest thorn in her side can no longer scratch her. She needs peace and to have this whole nightmare behind her.
 
HHD-CV19-6116846-S - DEAN, MARK H., AS TRUSTEE OF THE CT RE 2019 TRUST v. DULOS, FOTIS Et Al
130.00 02/03/2020 P REPLY
Document.gif
newred.gif
TO REQUEST FOR A HEARING
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=18631953


"The histrionics set forth in this request suggest it was dictated by Attorney Pattis who also doesn’t have any standing
in this matter"
 
Last edited:
ViolaAnn said:
Just wondering, does anyone know if FD's family is currently staying at the house? I believe GF's motion for receiver was granted on Friday. I read there is a hearing via phone call today but curious if the family is allowed in the house. Thanks.
Click to expand...
AC and some family members are staying there.

from Weinstein:
"The receiver is now aware that one or more of Dulos family members
and Dulos’ friend Anna Curry are staying at 4 Jefferson Crossing. Neither the
receiver nor the plaintiff have any objection to those individuals staying at the
residence provided that it is for a limited period of time (they requested until
Friday, February 7th), provided that they make certain that the home is locked
when not occupied; that they do not remove contents from the house; that
they make certain that they coordinate returning keys to the receiver upon
vacating the house on Friday; and that they waive any claim of damages for
personal injury while occupying the house".
 
sds71 said:
HHD-CV19-6116846-S - DEAN, MARK H., AS TRUSTEE OF THE CT RE 2019 TRUST v. DULOS, FOTIS Et Al
130.00 02/03/2020 P REPLY
Document.gif
newred.gif
TO REQUEST FOR A HEARING
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=18631953
Click to expand...
so the grifters want to stay at 4JX til at least Fri 2/7/19. Who will boot them out if they're not gone?
And there's very little gas left to heat the house
because FD left a balance owed to gas co.
And NP has tried to insert himself into a probate case, which he has no basis to do.
Just a few more details in this mess.
 
sds71 said:
HHD-CV19-6116846-S - DEAN, MARK H., AS TRUSTEE OF THE CT RE 2019 TRUST v. DULOS, FOTIS Et Al
130.00 02/03/2020 P REPLY
Document.gif
newred.gif
TO REQUEST FOR A HEARING
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=18631953
Click to expand...

Below are my favorite excerpts from this motion. IMO - NP should slither away soon. AC and FDs family are permitted to stay until their requested date of 2/7. I look forward to NPs spin on this.

"The histrionics set forth in this request suggest it was dictated by Attorney Pattis who also doesn’t have any standing in this matter. The unwarranted and outrageous allegations against the plaintiff and language used are inappropriate to have been filed in this case"

"Based on Attorney Pattis’ statements to the press, he apparently has some intentions in regard to the estate that go beyond any normal administration. It would appear that this request is filled with the type of language to appeal to a different audience other than this Superior Court judge for this purpose."
​
 
sds71 said:
AC and some family members are staying there.

from Weinstein:
"The receiver is now aware that one or more of Dulos family members
and Dulos’ friend Anna Curry are staying at 4 Jefferson Crossing. Neither the
receiver nor the plaintiff have any objection to those individuals staying at the
residence provided that it is for a limited period of time (they requested until
Friday, February 7th), provided that they make certain that the home is locked
when not occupied; that they do not remove contents from the house; that
they make certain that they coordinate returning keys to the receiver upon
vacating the house on Friday; and that they waive any claim of damages for
personal injury while occupying the house".
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
afitzy said:
Almost immediately after Fd was declared dead, Atty. P. files two motions regarding discovery and substituting the estate in the criminal case. He announces the motions around the same time Fd died. Why do this when the absence of Fd due to suicide effectively terminates the criminal proceeding? Atty. P. IMO simply put up a big sign with these 2 motions and was desperate to make people believe that, "There is nothing to see here"!
I think every attorney interviewed on these 2 motions said the same thing, namely that these motions of 'Norm Barnum' are going nowhere. Yet these effectively toothless motions have dominated the press since the death of Fd and now Atty. P. is planting stories with DA about how Fd was treated by the courts in CT in the divorce action? What gives?

Sadly its Groundhog Day in Pattisville and they just can't get out of the loop IMO.

So, why push 2 motions that will go nowhere and then proceed to talk to every news outlet under the sun about them?

We've been down this path before with Atty. P. and we know that it's usually done in a weak attempt to shift the narrative away from reality and onto planet bizzaro where Press spin rules the day.

The reality is that Fd gassed himself to death. We can debate all day long whether it was a stunt or real but the thing about the entire situation that remains unanswered is why wasn't the alarm raised as to Fd location by Atty Smith? Why did the bonding people have more concern it seems than Fd Counsel as to his location? Why did the monitoring people accept voicemail repeatedly when Fd didn't pick up? What role in the decision to gas himself to death did Atty. P. play? Why did Fd not mention his attorney by name in his 'note'? Had Fd realised that it wasn't possible to have confidence in the Atty. P. strategy? Did Atty. P. tell Fd that he would no longer represent him as he had no money? Had Fd been desperately trying to reach his attorney regarding the bond situation and Atty. P. wasn't taking his calls and Atty Smith couldn't give him the time of day? Fd made the firm of Pattis & Smith IMO look like a bunch of carnival barkers or hucksters with the stunt he and AC tried to pull off. Was Atty. P. involved in the bond stunt? IDK. Nobody knows but Atty. P. doesn't want anyone asking the question.

I do want to know how the other CT bonding Company was able to alert Atty Colangelo so quickly about a potentially fraudulent bond YET Atty. P. who probably knew more about Fd finances than anyone simply sat on his hands it seems and was blowing bubbles and waiting for someone to do their job and check the bond. If Atty. P. knew the bond was a fraud then why not alert the Court or call Colangelo ASAP? Or, was this a situation like with the infamous axe where you just wait for CSP to walk by and find it rather than handing it in as evidence? IMO its hard NOT to believe here that Atty. P. isn't part of the bond issue. Atty. P. described the fraudulent bond issue as relative to 'title insurance'. Sure, you would have title issues if a property were in foreclosure or if title to property wasn't clear due to litigation but thats really NOT THE ISSUE HERE AT ALL. Atty. P. was IMO dancing here hoping not to be called out for being involved with submitting a fraudulent bond to the Court.

The reality also was that fraudulent information was presented to the Court for the bond. Looking at the supplemental bond documents it appears that contrary to what he said earlier, that the Atty. P. PI was involved with the Bond as was AC. AC I believe tried to get the bond situation stabilised by signing a note for $3.0 million paid in instalments. But, ultimately Palmetto, who had issued the bond, simply wanted to leave a very messy situation. Atty. P. looked to be intimately involved with the bonding situation even though it was his clients job to sort it out. Why was Atty. P. so involved with the Bond? Is this why Atty. P. is now representing AC?

Court started at 12. No Fd. Atty Smith said that he alerted at 12:15pm. Why didn't he know where his client was given that his client should have left by 10:30am or risk being a no show. Had Atty Smith made any efforts to locate Fd? How many calls to Atty. P. did Atty Smith make? How many calls to Atty P did Fd make? I'm curious if during this time Atty. P. took a call from Atty Smith but NOT Fd!

The reality is that the individual party to the bond was new Atty. P. client AC. Doesn't seem like Atty. P. much wants to talk about AC and why it seems she was being heavily investigated by Atty Colangelo along with Andreas Tout. Who is AC and was she handing over her money in good faith for the Fd ill fated fraudulent bond or was it possibly Fd money that she had hidden on his behalf from the divorce action?

It appears that AC and Fd tried desperately to salvage the bond but it appears that Palmetto simply wanted out and out quickly. Was Atty. P. too busy with his new client in Washington to sort out a replacement bond for Fd or is the reason he didn't do so was because it was impossible and so he told Fd his only option was to go to jail and this is what put Fd into a tailspin as he knew the Judge was going to send him out Door 2 and straight to BPT? Or, was Atty. P. so angry over the JFd memorial desecration and the fraudulent bond that he and Atty Smith said they would no longer represent Fd?

IMO these are all quite serious matters that shine the light back on Atty. P. and his role in all of these issues. But, Atty. P. doesn't want that light on himself and he doesn't want to be questioned on any of it. Instead Atty. P. wants to talk about Joan of Arc and Constitutional amendments.

I do hope the State does investigate Atty. P. role in all of these matters and ditto for AC and AT as this all seems profoundly shady and possibly unlawful.

MOO
Click to expand...
Agree on everything you've said here but that NP would want out of his representation of FD--his claim to fame! One point -- the terms of FD's house arrest didn't include permission for him to drive himself to court, but to his lawyers' office. I do think that an investigation of the fraudulent bond should be opened in the State Insurance Department (and possibly feds too), not only on the insufficiency of the collateral but also as to whether any of the funds put up derived from criminal activity. Wondered if FD thought about such an investigation and involvement of not only himself but others. IMO NP should be called as a witness. Moo
 
I have questions. Apologies, very late to this case. Have just read the three latests arrest warrants.
  • Is there any information as to whether LE has retrieved any vehicle information for KM?
  • Has KM provided an alibi for his whereabouts after he left 4JX?
  • Is there any mention of the red truck coming back to either 4JX or 80MS?
  • do you think it is likely that whoever killed Jennifer disposed of her body near her home/where the truck was abandoned, OR do you think that the driver of the red truck risked having a body and clean up materials in the back of the truck?
  • the AW mentions that a bike can been seen in the bed of the truck, but no mention of trash bags.
  • Is there likely more vehicle movements/CCTV near Jennifers home that is not contained in the AW(s) (I'm having a hard time that there is no more CCTV in that area and that Jennifer did not have a security system or CCTV on or near her property).
At the moment:
  1. I do think that FD is responsbile for Jennifers disappearance;
  2. I do not think that MT was aware of what was in the bags. I think the penny had dropped by her third interview;
  3. I think KM knows way more than MT does;
  4. I get the distinct impression that neither FD nor KM like/respect women;
  5. I do not think that the murder was because FD wanted access to the childrens trust fund. The total of the trust funds combined is 2 million and hardly enough to solve FDs financial problems (see last point on page 30 of FD AW). I think he just wanted the divorce done with/Jennifer gone;
  6. I do think this was planned and I think that KM helped FD plan it. I also think that KM assisted with disposal of the body.
ETA my final musing: - i think it will be very telling what happens next to the MT and KM cases. I would not be at all surprised if charges are dropped against MT. I do not think they will be dropped against KM.
 
Last edited:
sds71 said:
HHD-CV19-6116846-S - DEAN, MARK H., AS TRUSTEE OF THE CT RE 2019 TRUST v. DULOS, FOTIS Et Al
130.00 02/03/2020 P REPLY
Document.gif
newred.gif
TO REQUEST FOR A HEARING
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=18631953


"The histrionics set forth in this request suggest it was dictated by Attorney Pattis who also doesn’t have any standing
in this matter"
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that the heating for a house that size comes from propane tanks, not natural gas or heating oil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 174 more.
Total: 1,845 (members: 175, guests: 1,670)

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
1,670
Total visitors
1,845
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,320
Messages
18,094,480
Members
230,847
Latest member
flapperst
Back
Top