Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 ARRESTS #45

doodles1211 · May 26, 2019

New Canaan Police are looking for a missing woman Saturday, May 25.

Jennifer Dulos, 50, was reported missing around 7:30 p.m. Friday, May 24. A sliver alert has been issued.

New Canaan Police with the assistance of the Connecticut State Police initiated a search and an investigation both of which are ongoing as of 8:45 am. Saturday..

Anyone with information related to Dulos’s whereabouts should contact Sgt. Joseph Farenga at 203-505-1332.

Sillybilly · Feb 3, 2020

ADMIN NOTE:

Welcome to our new members.

Please review THE RULES, particularly those called “Etiquette & Information” and “Social Media: Facebook, Twitter, etc.”, some of which are as follows:

Do not bring social media comments by the general public to Websleuths. They are considered rumor and are off limits. You can summarize information from an original post on a LE or MSM FB page. No copy and paste, no screenshots, and you must include a link.

Unless LE indicates that an individual is a POI/suspect, that individual is OFF LIMITS to sleuthing and speculation. Please keep your suspicions to yourself.

WS is VICTIM FRIENDLY. No sleuthing of family members, especially parents and spouses. We give them the benefit of the doubt and the last thing we want to do is re-victimize a grieving loved one.

Theories, opinion, speculation are welcome as long as they are based on FACTS that have been made available through mainstream media (MSM), law enforcement (LE), or other acceptable sources such as scholarly or professional publications.

When you state something as "fact", you must back it up with a link to an approved source. If you can't link it, you can't post it.

Copyright rules require that no more than 10% of any article may be copied and members must give credit to the source by providing a link. Again, if you can't link it, you can't post it. No link, no post.

Websleuths does not allow linking to unapproved sites, so if you happen to see one of your posts has disappeared, it could be because Websleuths does not allow discussion of hoax theories or rumors from other sites, or for a violation of one of The Rules noted and linked above.

DO NOT discuss moderation on the thread. Mods have the right to edit and delete posts at their discretion if there is a violation of TOS or the post is otherwise deemed inappropriate.

If you need help or have questions or concerns, the Mods are happy to assist. Please use the private messaging system called “Conversations” to contact us in a respectful fashion. Disrespect to members or Websleuths staff is not allowed.

The above is only a partial list of TheRules aka TOS. You'll find others in the links provided. Please check them out, as it is every member’s responsibility to know them and post in accordance with them.

MsJosie · Feb 5, 2020

All of a sudden I am having a hard time replying, sorry I cannot reply to post....so

It is hard to know what Jennifer’s mom would do...want the two remaining suspects, possible felons, to serve time or get a reduced sentence if they gave up the location of Jennifer's body.

If it was just Jennifer’s mom and sister left I would say the would both want the book thrown at the two possible felons. Let them rot in prison. However, there are children to think of. Having closure by getting Jennifer back, buried, and a place where the children can go visit may be more important. The children would not have to wonder where is their Mom.

Grandma will be thinking of the children when this occurs. She, her family and friends have followed through with dignity, honor and respect. Even Grandmas attorneys have shown respect and honor through the circus of motions and comments from the defense teams.

A very hard decision to make.

MsJosie · Feb 6, 2020

Tink56 said:
I really tried to think what type of employment MT might pursue. There are ski areas near Hartford and riding facilities. She worked on promotions for Fd's building company while they were still selling real estate in 2016. However, all of these require her to work out in public. She might be disappointed by her reception and can understand why someone might be hesitant to hire her.

Hopefully her case can go to trial quickly. I do think the state has enough evidence to make their case.

But it will be delayed so the new attorney can “so the new attorney can get up to speed”. Will the new attorney play the delay tactics other defense attorneys have played?

I wish the trial was sooner then later.

MsJosie · Feb 6, 2020

Alathea said:
Doesn't she have a friend nearby who can bring her to her place of work where she can sell her dead animals? She hasn't owned a car in years; can't she borrow one as she has for years?

Don't worry, MT; we'll help you figure your life out. I'm sorry your family isn't helping to rent or buy you a vehicle, or hire you for one of the many family businesses registered in their names.

Doesn’t MT own a business with her sister in FL? Can she not do something on the computer for the business?

OR is MT not allowed to use any computer or media at all?

Alathea · Feb 6, 2020

MsJosie said:
Doesn’t MT own a business with her sister in FL? Can she not do something on the computer for the business?

OR is MT not allowed to use any computer or media at all?

I hadn't heard or read of any restrictions with her using a computer - I don't recall anything like that in her bond conditions.

CTGrammy · Feb 6, 2020

BeckyF said:
IMO FD was only happy if he was able to manipulate people, especially women. Which means to me he most likely told MT lots of details about the murder of Jennifer. Why would he keep it from her? He needed a cohort. He had learned how to manipulate women. Why did she help him dispose of evidence? Because she was under his control due to her own psychological issues. He had no guilt, IMO, so I don't think he would have spilled his guts just to relieve his guilty conscience. JMO.

Oooh. Thats right. JFd stated in Family Court that Fd would describe his 'sickening revenge fantasies' to her.

Murdering JFd is Not something that Fd would have kept secret from the person he was 'enamored' with.

I am sure their 'pillow talk' consisted of Everything about the planning, the murder, and the disposal - before, during, and after.

IMO.

HopeForTheBest · Feb 6, 2020

kaen said:
I agree on the seeing the daughter and on the whining because she wants to be able to go to out is annoying given that she can.

However, if there is no reason for drug testing, why do it? As taypayers we pay for it. I am sure the cost is not cheap even she has to put up money for it, the taypayers are paying the lionshare. That just feels wasteful given that she is not a known drug user.

Perhaps it is that she is not a known drug user to us. It is very likely that when she freaked out after court that time and went to the hospital, she was tested for the presence of substances that could have been related. A positive result there—and certainly they would verify it with a more definitive second test method—would be reason for future testing. It wasn’t required of her before—and not for FD, either. MOO.

HopeForTheBest · Feb 6, 2020

MsJosie said:
All of a sudden I am having a hard time replying, sorry I cannot reply to post....so

It is hard to know what Jennifer’s mom would do...want the two remaining suspects, possible felons, to serve time or get a reduced sentence if they gave up the location of Jennifer's body.

If it was just Jennifer’s mom and sister left I would say the would both want the book thrown at the two possible felons. Let them rot in prison. However, there are children to think of. Having closure by getting Jennifer back, buried, and a place where the children can go visit may be more important. The children would not have to wonder where is their Mom.

Grandma will be thinking of the children when this occurs. She, her family and friends have followed through with dignity, honor and respect. Even Grandmas attorneys have shown respect and honor through the circus of motions and comments from the defense teams.

A very hard decision to make.

Dr. Farber would make the best decision for the kids, I feel sure. There may not be access to the body now if it were perhaps disposed of in pieces and in the water and if that’s true, well, no option for them there. If it were me, I’d choose to have JD’s remains even if the others got less time because there would be no doubt in my mind that their lives would be their punishment. Inside prison, they’re among many others who may have become desensitized to the horrors some prisoners have committed. Outside of prison, they will not have that, and given their patterns of behavior as documented in court records and from things they themselves said publicly, it seems unlikely that they will be beloved by many. At the same time, it might be easier on the kids to know that those two never could come walking up to them somewhere, someday. Those poor kids—and I mean the children of MT and KM, too. MOO.

sds71 · Feb 6, 2020

Colangelo sat down with FOX61 and delivered direct and pointed answers on a variety of hot button topics.

M:When you were promoted to this post, you were leading the prosecution on the one of the most high profile cases Connecticut has ever seen. The Dulos murder case. How will your involvement in the case change and how will a new lead prosecutor be selected?

R:“Right now I’m still acting states attorney in Stamford so I guess I’m still leading the charge there. I don’t think I’ll be able to continue that. Once the new states attorney is appointed I will have a conversation with whoever that person is to talk about the case. There are members of the office who are very familiar with the case just like I was.”

M:In your opinion, can we have a murder trial without a physical victim and without a suspect?

R:“The case is scheduled for that motion on Friday. Come to court on Friday and you’ll see what happens.”

*This court hearing has been rescheduled for next week.

M:What was going through your mind when you found out that Fotis Dulos poisoned himself with carbon monoxide?

R:“I was sitting in my office waiting for him to come to court with one of my attorneys and it was sad. It really was.”

M:How difficult has it been for you to have been working on this case?

R:“It’s amazing to me the following that case got. The state police. The western district major crime guys are tremendous. There wasn’t a day since Jennifer went missing that I hadn’t talked to them and the New Canaan Police who were involved with them. Every step of the way they kept me informed. There were so many facets to that investigation it was incredible as you saw in the warrant.”
New Chief State’s Attorney talks Dulos case and hot button topics

Boxer · Feb 6, 2020

afitzy said:
Atty. P. Did say something interesting on chaz and aj show about how in a civil litigation that the estate can be substituted for a live person.

Perhaps what would end this ongoing Atty. P. Catch me if you can on the Albany evidence is simply to sue the estate for wrongful death now. Let Atty. P. defend FD and end this nightmare. This would finish the discussion but would also diminish the estate but it might be worth it to clear the decks and provide closure for the family as the Atty. P. Nightmare doesn’t seem to want to end.

wonder if it could work?

moo

The level burden of proof is much less in an civil case.

Beyond a reasonable doubt vs. Preponderance of evidence.

Oj lost wrongful death suit n civil court.

Nikynoo · Feb 6, 2020

Alathea said:
Hi Nikynoo. Not sure about in the UK, but here, the opinion of the ME is not "just one opinion" that would be met with "immediate doubt," as you have stated.

On the contrary: in a trial, the statement from such an individual is considered expert testimony or expert evidence from a witness with knowledge and/or training beyond that of the average person; it's someone who has the expertise and specialized knowledge sufficient that others can legally rely upon their statement.

Further, the expert is hired for their independent professional judgement, not for any biased or personal opinion.

This post, however, is my personal opinion.

Thanks for your reply! What I was trying to get across was that whilst the MEs opinion is an expert one, it is still an opinion and the 'evidence' has not been tested.
Lets take it a step further and play 'what if''.

What if, at trial/discovery, it is revealed that LE sought opinions from three experts and two of them disageed with the opinion of the third?
What if, at trial/discovery, it is revealed that the expert opinion prefaced some of his findings with other factors that needed to be present to support those findings?
What if, at trial/discovery, the prosecution decide not to present this 'evidence' for one reason or another?

The point I am trying to get across is, the evidence stated in the arrest warrants has not been tested and therefore, IMO, raises reasonable doubt.

In the UK, arrest warrants, search warrants etc are not released, in fact nothing is released document wise at all. All information is part of trial and the jury makes its decision on the facts presented to them. I must admit, I do find the US system troubling (in the release of information prior to trial), how can this not prejudice a Defendant?

afitzy · Feb 6, 2020

NCmom99 said:
***
I continue to be curious about “the story yet to be told” that NP suggests will have us all second guessing our current beliefs. I cannot fathom any “story” (actually, that’s an interesting word choice...) that could reasonably explain away all the [still limited] evidence that has been shared with the public thus far but will continue to sit on the edge of my seat just in case.

Listening (unfortunately endured this....) to the Chaz and AJ show where 'ole Atty. P. provided this 'explanation' it was quite clear that NO fully developed explanation exists for Albany. NONE! There is nothing to wait for and nothing to be uncomfortable about while sitting down as its simply DOESN'T exist.

Atty. P. after ongoing Court nonsense about the lack of a grand jury WAIVED the Fd right to a probable cause hearing and chose to not present any evidence on Fd behalf. Fd stood in Court that day and explained that he understood what this all meant. Atty. P. AND Fd knew that the evidence NOT YET shown far surpassed the evidence SHOWN in AW1-3. For all of Atty. P.'s blather about Fd suicide not being a statement of guilt I have to absolutely call BS. Fd didn't commit suicide for no reason and he had just been caught out on putting forward a FAUX bond application and had roped in his latest girlfriend AC into giving up roughly a third of her stated net worth for the worthless bond application. Fd was going back to prison and as he said in his 'note' he simply couldn't take it. IMO Fd was a coward in life and in death and his suicide demonstrates this clearly as it clearly demonstrates his guilt, even if he couldn't face admitting it in his note.

Atty. P. who IMO has a convenient grasp of the concept of truth and truthfulness was surprisingly candid that he has some information but they are still working on the rest. NOW, he has no client and presumably no retainer, which means that the PI who provided no financial information on the Fd FAUX bond application BTW, is no longer working on the case unless Atty. P. is paying him (and this appears unlikely IMO).

IMO Atty. P. never had and never will have a viable alternative theory for Albany or why his client was in NC on the date JFd was murdered. For Atty. P. to perpetuate these unfounded statements in the press to simply prolong his 15 minutes and also to take advantage of the Greek Family is IMO shameful but not surprising given his well established behaviour patterns.

I very much hope that the Atty. P. role (along with his PI McKenna) in the Fd FAUX bond with 24/7 Bail Bonds/Palmetto is investigated completely by the State of CT and that he is censured and/or reported to the Bar as appropriate. To see Atty. P. hide behind patently false statements of issues with title insurance etc. regarding the bond was simply inexplicable, given the obvious shortcomings of the Fd collateral and the AC personal net worth.

So, IMO there is nothing to 'stay tuned' for with Atty. P. and its just time to 'tune him out'.

MOO

Nikynoo · Feb 6, 2020

afitzy said:
I think you are missing the key point that Palmetto itself was looking to pull the bond as it realised there was insufficient collateral. IMO they were also doing this because they never should have written the bond in the first place as they, according to the whistleblower, didn't have sufficient cash reserves to make good on the payment. Rather that addressing the issue of their financial lack of strength it was easier to point to the fraudulent statements made in the bond package and void the bond that way.

Palmetto is not a global powerhouse financial services/insurance company and if you look at its ownership and capital its a very small privately owned company that IMO and the opinion of the whistleblower had no business issuing a bond for $6million in this case. Suggest a simple google stroll on the topic of Palmetto will tell you everything you need to know about whether they have the financial ability to make good on a $6 million bond. Fd didn't disclose the status of his assets and the AC situation is IMO highly suspect as well and the Atty. P. PI didn't even provide any financial information in his application.

MOO

Yes, I get your point. However, my point is, P should have checked the information in the application was valid before agreeing the bond (and entering into contractual obligations to the court), especially seeing it was for so much, and as you state was way over the limit of what they could grant anyway. IMO the contractual obligations P has with the court override the 'fraudulent' application made by the Defendant. It doesnt get P off the hook. IMO the court would take the view that P should have made certain that the collateral (or have other steps in place) to ensure that it could collect in the event of default. It should also have done this before collecting the 'premium' for arranging the bond.

Nikynoo · Feb 6, 2020

afitzy said:
I'd refer you to the brilliantly clear email written by the whistleblower to Atty Colangelo which was posted previously and is included as part of the bond information posted.

The ultimate party here is Palmetto and Palmetto based on the brilliant due diligence of the whistleblower ascertained that this entity doesn't have sufficient reserves to make payment on a $6.0 million bond should it be required by the State of CT.

So, yes the State of CT would be 'out' if they made a demand to Palmetto and Palmetto said 'sorry I don't have the cash/capital/resources to meet your request'.

Did you also see that the actual certificate issued by Palmetto for the bond referenced the involved State as being the State of Florida and Country of Fairfield. Did Palmetto even realise they were doing a bond deal in CT? Further, did you see the quality of the overall application in terms of incomplete information of almost every party to the bond? Look at the AC stated assets and liabilities and tell me that you would lend her $3 million on an unsecured basis? If you do please let me know and I've got a very large broken down bridge in NY to sell you!

Little about the package IMO inspired confidence and I'm not sure why it was accepted by the Court and Atty Colangelo.

MOO

I actually pointed out the State of Florida in a post yesterday and have just responded to another of your posts. I think we need to agree to disagree on this one.

afitzy · Feb 6, 2020

MsJosie said:
But it will be delayed so the new attorney can “so the new attorney can get up to speed”. Will the new attorney play the delay tactics other defense attorneys have played?

I wish the trial was sooner then later.

Its already started with the delay as the new atty was trying to get the files from Atty Bowman and Atty Bowman said they had to be returned to the Court rather than sent to the Atty (Atty Bowman is technically correct).

Its not clear whether the new files can be obtained quickly from Stamford as the new atty seems challenged to figure out how to get from Hartford to Stamford to pick them up and made it sound in his whiney motion as if he were being asked to make a a trek on snowshoes to Siberia amidst a blizzard. Not an impressive first impression IMO.

So, the new atty did say he was operating with 'limited information' about MT as he made his first interview. Yeah, Right. Complain about lack of files and get MT bracelet removed as it is 'punishing her'. Got it. Yawn.

The first thing he did was file to move the case to Hartford. Seems like we have someone that doesn't want to drive himself and his client to Stamford and so we are seeing yet again the tale of 'Two Connecticut's' where the northern and southern parts of the state are largely disconnected (good reason for this as there is little to nothing in common IMO).

Is the new atty so naive as to think that press coverage will be less in Hartford and that the media from lower CT and NY won't follow along? He now has as his client one of the most reviled alleged murderers in recent times and I think there are few that have not been given pause by her statement that she, "wasn't cleaning Jennifer"!

Who is going to hire MT after even having read a single news article about her? Would you want her with a Conspiracy to Commit Murder charge working retail, fast food, stocking warehouse, interacting with clients, around animals or children?

I mean how seriously have MT and Mama A been pursuing viable income opportunities with their dead animal rug business if their primary method of promotion and customer interaction was a PRIVATE Instagram account with 100 followers? It's all quite laughable as is the idea of MT commuting on CT Transit to a job at the Farmington Mall or some such local job.

In thinking about the new 'atty's' request to remove the bracelet and all non financial conditions to MT's bail I actually initially felt huge anger and then absolute outrage at the request given the fact that she, unlike many others in CT, due to her great financial privilege isn't sitting in prison awaiting trial and YET she feels compelled to complain about her circumstances!

I won't even go into the various 'life choices' that got MT to where she finds herself today but where she is today is as a 45 year old with no personal financial means, non existent work history, limited practical work skills, single mother with no way to support her daughter absent biodad support, and who is reliant on her families financial support to survive her wait for trial of extremely serious charges.

No buena chica.

MOO

afitzy · Feb 6, 2020

Nikynoo said:
I actually pointed out the State of Florida in a post yesterday and have just responded to another of your posts. I think we need to agree to disagree on this one.

Yes, I think its safe to say that there is little common ground on our understandings of this matter.

My point was that even with a properly collateralised bond from Fd and AC, GV and McKenna that 24/7 Bail Bonds/Palmetto were not a viable candidate to issue a $6 million dollar bond to the State due to the financial standing of Palmetto.

The fact that we had fraud on the bond was almost a side issue but also doesn't inspire any confidence really about the business practices of 24/7 Bail Bonds OR Palmetto to tell you the truth as that bond package IMO was a shambles. BOTH these entities should be taken off the list by the State of CT as what they did was irresponsible and wrong and put the State at risk IMO.

The significant issue for the State of CT was that given the liquidity and capital position of Palmetto there would be no way for them to process a bond draw request by the State of CT. So, to get back to what I thought was your original issue, YES the State was at risk as effectively them taking a bond from Palmetto wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

I do agree with you that Palmetto should never have agreed to write the Fd bond given their financial situation and so IMO took the premium under somewhat false pretences from Fd/AC/GV and McKenna. But I do wonder also about the involvement of Atty. P. and 24/7 Bail Bonds too as I would have thought that they had checked out Palmetto's ability to cover the bond. My guess is that this mess will be litigated as it seems that the pockets of AC/GV and McKenna were simply picked by a possibly greedy Palmetto anxious for a large fee and who hoped that their capital standing wouldn't be scrutinised.

Sad to see an absence of due diligence all around here from Atty. P. on behalf of his client, AC most likely not having personal representation and the others duped by Fd into giving their hard earned cash and the State of CT who took over 20 days to figure out they had a fraudulent bond and an undercapitalised bond insurer on their hands.

MOO

Nikynoo · Feb 6, 2020

afitzy said:
Yes, I think its safe to say that there is little common ground on our understandings of this matter.

My point was that even with a properly collateralised bond from Fd and AC, GV and McKenna that 24/7 Bail Bonds/Palmetto were not a viable candidate to issue a $6 million dollar bond to the State due to the financial standing of Palmetto.

The fact that we had fraud on the bond was almost a side issue but also doesn't inspire any confidence really about the business practices of 24/7 Bail Bonds OR Palmetto to tell you the truth as that bond package IMO was a shambles. BOTH these entities should be taken off the list by the State of CT as what they did was irresponsible and wrong and put the State at risk IMO.

The significant issue for the State of CT was that given the liquidity and capital position of Palmetto there would be no way for them to process a bond draw request by the State of CT. So, to get back to what I thought was your original issue, YES the State was at risk as effectively them taking a bond from Palmetto wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

I do agree with you that Palmetto should never have agreed to write the Fd bond given their financial situation and so IMO took the premium under somewhat false pretences from Fd/AC/GV and McKenna. But I do wonder also about the involvement of Atty. P. and 24/7 Bail Bonds too as I would have thought that they had checked out Palmetto's ability to cover the bond. My guess is that this mess will be litigated as it seems that the pockets of AC/GV and McKenna were simply picked by a possibly greedy Palmetto anxious for a large fee and who hoped that their capital standing wouldn't be scrutinised.

Sad to see an absence of due diligence all around here from Atty. P. on behalf of his client, AC most likely not having personal representation and the others duped by Fd into giving their hard earned cash and the State of CT who took over 20 days to figure out they had a fraudulent bond and an undercapitalised bond insurer on their hands.

MOO

I agree completely! Progress

afitzy · Feb 6, 2020

Nikynoo said:
Thanks for your reply! What I was trying to get across was that whilst the MEs opinion is an expert one, it is still an opinion and the 'evidence' has not been tested.
Lets take it a step further and play 'what if''.

What if, at trial/discovery, it is revealed that LE sought opinions from three experts and two of them disageed with the opinion of the third?
What if, at trial/discovery, it is revealed that the expert opinion prefaced some of his findings with other factors that needed to be present to support those findings?
What if, at trial/discovery, the prosecution decide not to present this 'evidence' because for one reason or another?

The point I am trying to get across is, the evidence stated in the arrest warrants has not been tested and therefore, IMO, raises reasonable doubt.

In the UK, arrest warrants, search warrants etc are not released, in fact nothing is released document wise at all. All information is part of trial and the jury makes its decision on the facts presented to them. I must admit, I do find the US system troubling (in the release of information prior to trial), how can this not prejudice a Defendant?

I admit to be almost equally baffled and oftentimes highly dismayed by the traditions and conventions of the UK and also EU legal systems but sadly and oftentimes painfully have to manage to find a way to function within the confines of all of them as a global citizen or simply as a company doing business around the world. Such is life.

We function within the parameters of the various legal system around the globe so regardless of what you happen to believe about the US system that is where MT will be tried by the State of CT (and its laws). MT isn't being tried in the UK or Venezuela or Argentina or Florida. CT Law will prevail for the trial of MT and should she be charged with possibly other crimes by the US Government then perhaps she will be subject to US Federal Law as well.

In US criminal trials expert testimony is a fact of life and the jury will be asked to make a determination about what they hear from the experts (and YES, Dr Gill in this case is considered an Expert).

IMO to state that the the evidence in the AW 'hasn't been tested' is factually inaccurate as it has been tested to a standard that was found acceptable by the Judge who signed the AW. What hasn't happened yet, and will happen at trial, is that alternative views of the evidence will be presented.

I don't believe the conclusion drawn that the, 'evidence has not been tested and therefore, IMO, raises reasonable doubt' is at all valid at this point as this will have to be determined by the jury at trial after hearing all the experts including Dr. Gill.

MOO

afitzy · Feb 6, 2020

Interview with MT new atty:

Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #45

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert IMO

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom

Former Member

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom

Former Member

Former Member

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom

Former Member

Former Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 ARRESTS #45