Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #52

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
waldojabba said:
You are referring to the three hour video of KM talking to authorities. I think this is new information for us. I am puzzled as to why MT's lawyer would throw that out during the hearing to the public at this point while he is trying to portray her as a saintly innocent mother. But I am glad he did. Goes to knowledge and intent - or something like that :) . Sure does not fit the narrative he is trying to sell. And just imagine the tape is Three Hours long. This is good news. IMO
Click to expand...

7 December article...
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/
local/article/Court-document-Attorney-in-Jennifer-Dulos-case-15782072.php
 
I doubt MT wants to miss her own hearing(s) so she can take an off-camera stroll to the nearby cafe or take a nap!

Every State and Federal court has adopted its own rules during COVID19 applicable to virtual court hearings.

I've listened to Federal trials where the defendant is incarcerated and his court appearance was not by web or fixed camera but audio-only.

Some courts even disclaim that free internet wifi does not offer the stability and strength required to participate in a zoom hearing.

I'm currently listening to a case in the US District Court of Northern CA where both participants and non-participants must acknowledge the strict rules of court decorum prior to access including the following:

IMPORTANT: HEARING RECORDING PROHIBITED
Any recording of a court proceeding held by video or teleconference, including “screen-shots” or other audio or visual copying of a hearing, is prohibited. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court-issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court.

See Notice Regarding Press and Public Access to Court Hearings and List of Judges’ Zoom Webinar Links

As for MT, the court has the means to prove the defendant is where she says via her GPS monitor. And what would be the purpose for her stay on camera after she's been acknowledged present by the court?

For public satisfaction? For media? If Judge Blawie and the DA are happy, that's good enough for me.

It also appears from the screenshots that CT allows the hearing recorded. It could very well be that JLS requested MT allowed to go off camera after rollcall, and continue by audio-only.

We already know that JLS's entire defense of his client thus far has been limited to focusing on MT's civil rights, and not her innocence. IMO, MT off-camera just sounds like another topic where JLS claimed MT's rights being violated if she's forced to remain on camera where media can focus their camera on her image! (I think NP made a similar claim about FD receiving too much media coverage inside the courtroom).

If MT not being on camera is a malfunction of the court or for reasons beyond MT's control, it would be up to JLS to stop the hearing until the matter corrected.

I've said it before, any claim hereafter that MT is receiving prejudicial treatment whereby her guilt or innocence decided, it's on JLS. I especially liked the DA suggesting that JLS needs to do "the lawyering."

MOO

ETA - link
Preparing to Participate in a Zoom Video Conference | United States District Court, Northern District of California
 
Last edited:
MsJosie said:
Even if the State put the evidence in order, the defense would say it was not in the order they want and would want the State to redo. Then the defense would come back and say the evidence is in the song order again. The defense would not be and is not happy about evidence order.

I wonder....just how much does MT and her sister look alike? Could they swap places and at quick glance no one knows?

I bet MT has researched with others, how to remove her ankle bracelet or wrist bracelet Getting it off the wrist would be a lot easier I would think....and don’t forget the use of tin foil, other apps and any tech savvy family friends. Think like a crook to figure out how to get the bracelet off.
Click to expand...

Remember, this is why they wouldn’t swap fD’s ankle monitor for a wrist one. Not sure why all of a sudden Colangelo has no objection to MT getting one.
 
I can't recall where a defendant on a GPS monitor for more than 17 months was granted their monitor removed, ever. Anybody?

Michael Skakel had a similar complaint of not being able to wear a ski boot (for his son) and granted permission to temporarily relocate his monitor from his ankle.

CT already established a precedent here.

Skakel granted request to relocate GPS device to fit ski boot
 
Jmoose said:
Remember, this is why they wouldn’t swap fD’s ankle monitor for a wrist one. Not sure why all of a sudden Colangelo has no objection to MT getting one.
Click to expand...

Big difference! FD was called into court by the Judge at least twice because the probation department contacted him about FD not being compliant with his GPS monitor. Even though FD was always traceable, he repeatedly gave the court reason to be concerned whereas MT has not.

Under low battery status, the GPS stops functioning and your movement will there fore be untraceable. And that’s not acceptable,” said Richard Colangelo, Prosecruter.

The prosecutor acknowledged to the judge that there was never a time during his probation that Dulos was not being electronically monitored.

“I checked with probation and there has not been an instance where he was not traceable. If there was I’d be yelling and screaming here but there has not been that situation,” said Colangelo.

Judge rules that GPS monitoring device stays on, keeps probation same in Dulos case | WTNH.com
 
Seattle1 said:
I doubt MT wants to miss her own hearing(s) so she can take an off-camera stroll to the nearby cafe or take a nap!

Every State and Federal court has adopted its own rules during COVID19 applicable to virtual court hearings.

I've listened to Federal trials where the defendant is incarcerated and his court appearance was not by web or fixed camera but audio-only.

Some courts even disclaim that free internet wifi does not offer the stability and strength required to participate in a zoom hearing.

I'm currently listening to a case in the US District Court of Northern CA where both participants and non-participants must acknowledge the strict rules of court decorum prior to access including the following:

IMPORTANT: HEARING RECORDING PROHIBITED
Any recording of a court proceeding held by video or teleconference, including “screen-shots” or other audio or visual copying of a hearing, is prohibited. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court-issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court.

See Notice Regarding Press and Public Access to Court Hearings and List of Judges’ Zoom Webinar Links

As for MT, the court has the means to prove the defendant is where she says via her GPS monitor. And what would be the purpose for her stay on camera after she's been acknowledged present by the court?

For public satisfaction? For media? If Judge Blawie and the DA are happy, that's good enough for me.

It also appears from the screenshots that CT allows the hearing recorded. It could very well be that JLS requested MT allowed to go off camera after rollcall, and continue by audio-only.

We already know that JLS's entire defense of his client thus far has been limited to focusing on MT's civil rights, and not her innocence. IMO, MT off-camera just sounds like another topic where JLS claimed MT's rights being violated if she's forced to remain on camera where media can focus their camera on her image! (I think NP made a similar claim about FD receiving too much media coverage inside the courtroom).

If MT not being on camera is a malfunction of the court or for reasons beyond MT's control, it would be up to JLS to stop the hearing until the matter corrected.

I've said it before, any claim hereafter that MT is receiving prejudicial treatment whereby her guilt or innocence decided, it's on JLS. I especially liked the DA suggesting that JLS needs to do "the lawyering."

MOO

ETA - link
Preparing to Participate in a Zoom Video Conference | United States District Court, Northern District of California
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for this discussion of the “rules”. I guess I was being selfish, wanting to actually “see MT”with my own eyes. I am just so worried MT will leave the country! Thanks for keeping me grounded! Justice for Jennifer!
 
Last edited:
citygirl said:
BINGO!
There it is. We did know this thanks to the loquascious, informative defense attorney, JS.
Trying to figure out how this serves his client Ms Troconis?
Maybe there is a method to his madness?
If nothing else, gives us some insight into his thinking.
MOO.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure JS is 'winging it"...and thank gosh it shows!

Think about it...in one of his earlier attempts to have MT's GPS removed, JS said he couldn't adequately represent MT because the State would know the locations they visit to prepare her defense.

BUT NOW...Troconis can be in Colorado and he can adequately prepare her defense? Without a tracker? So she can wear a ski boot? :rolleyes:

And don't forget the leg irritation in his 1st, 2nd, or 3rd request to have it removed. She can now take her daughter out for ice cream...and if she were the #blessed person she claims to be, she would be thanking her lucky stars for that. But, no

MOO
 
citygirl said:
So,where did they put it?
Click to expand...
Back in 2014, the only thing I recall reported was the bracelet temporarily moved to a different part of his body.

Today, Judge Blawie indicated he'd consider a wrist bracelet for MT if that technology is available-- but only after making it clear that he heard no compelling reason to revisit removing her from GPS monitoring (i.e., no heard no compelling reasons to revisit the non-financial conditions).

Judge rules Michelle Troconis will not have ankle monitor removed; co-defendant set to be witness in Dulos case
https://nypost.com/2014/02/12/skakel-allowed-to-move-tracking-cuff-so-he-can-ski-with-son/
 
02/02/2021

This notification is brought to you by the Connecticut Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification (SAVIN) Program.

This email is to inform you that KENT MAWHINNEY, with docket number H14HCR190281509T, has an upcoming court event.

A/An Disposition Hearing has been scheduled for 04/26/2021. This will take place in GA 14 Hartford Courthouse located at the following address: 101 Lafayette Street, Hartford, CT.
02/02/2021

This notification is brought to you by the Connecticut Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification (SAVIN) Program.

This email is to inform you that KENT MAWHINNEY, with docket number HHD CR190266274T, has an upcoming court event.

A/An Hearing has been scheduled for 04/22/2021. This will take place in Hartford JD Courthouse located at the following address: 101 Lafayette Street, Hartford, CT.

Please be aware that there is often more than one case scheduled for a particular date in this court. Please visit www.jud.ct.gov to check for any updates that may be available on this case.
@Niner
 
Jmoose said:
Remember, this is why they wouldn’t swap fD’s ankle monitor for a wrist one. Not sure why all of a sudden Colangelo has no objection to MT getting one.
Click to expand...
I think Colangelo used clever wording to stop that in its tracks.

"Colangelo said the state would be willing to accommodate Troconis with a wrist monitor — instead of the ankle bracelet — if the technology was available." It wasn't for Fotis, I tend to doubt it would be now...
ETA: 'and if I find the arrangement acceptable' MOO

And Blawie came in with the BOOM:
“I’m not hearing that it’s a substantial interference with her ability to make a living,” Blawie said. “It’s recreational activities — granted it’s important for her daughter — but I’m not hearing valid reasons to revisit the non-financial terms of her release.”

Anyone else hear that mic drop? :D
MOO
Prosecutor: Co-defendant Kent Mawhinney to testify in Jennifer Dulos case
 
Vae Victus said:
Another article about Mawhinney testifying. This time from the Hartford Courant.

Kent Mawhinney, friend of Fotis Dulos, to testify in Jennifer Farber Dulos case, prosecutors say
Click to expand...
And there's JS for his 'win' today :p
“At least they said on the record that he would, I believe the word was, ‘probably’ be called as a witness,” Schoenhorn said after the hearing. “So I know what to prepare, I know what’s credible and not.”

HILARIOUS!
MOO

Kent Mawhinney, friend of Fotis Dulos, to testify in Jennifer Farber Dulos case, prosecutors say
 
Morgan10028 said:
I think Colangelo used clever wording to stop that in its tracks.

"Colangelo said the state would be willing to accommodate Troconis with a wrist monitor — instead of the ankle bracelet — if the technology was available." It wasn't for Fotis, I tend to doubt it would be now...
ETA: 'and if I find the arrangement acceptable' MOO

And Blawie came in with the BOOM:
“I’m not hearing that it’s a substantial interference with her ability to make a living,” Blawie said. “It’s recreational activities — granted it’s important for her daughter — but I’m not hearing valid reasons to revisit the non-financial terms of her release.”

Anyone else hear that mic drop? :D
MOO
Prosecutor: Co-defendant Kent Mawhinney to testify in Jennifer Dulos case
Click to expand...

Yes -- I did.

To be clear, Judge Blawie denied the motion for the removal of the bracelet when he heard no compelling reason to revisit the non-financial terms of MT's release. However, he did say he'd be open to switching the monitor to the wrist if that technology available. Colangelo agreed the state would be willing to accommodate a wrist monitor.
 
Seattle1 said:
Yes -- I did.

To be clear, Judge Blawie denied the motion for the removal of the bracelet when he heard no compelling reason to revisit the non-financial terms of MT's release. However, he did say he'd be open to switching the monitor to the wrist if that technology available. Colangelo agreed the state would be willing to accommodate a wrist monitor.
Click to expand...
I copied/pasted directly from the article I attached. Maybe there are a few reports of who said what? idk...

ETA: Video should be up soon, so I guess we'll see...
 
Last edited:
sds71 said:
02/02/2021

This notification is brought to you by the Connecticut Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification (SAVIN) Program.

This email is to inform you that KENT MAWHINNEY, with docket number H14HCR190281509T, has an upcoming court event.

A/An Disposition Hearing has been scheduled for 04/26/2021. This will take place in GA 14 Hartford Courthouse located at the following address: 101 Lafayette Street, Hartford, CT.
02/02/2021

This notification is brought to you by the Connecticut Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification (SAVIN) Program.

This email is to inform you that KENT MAWHINNEY, with docket number HHD CR190266274T, has an upcoming court event.

A/An Hearing has been scheduled for 04/22/2021. This will take place in Hartford JD Courthouse located at the following address: 101 Lafayette Street, Hartford, CT.

Please be aware that there is often more than one case scheduled for a particular date in this court. Please visit www.jud.ct.gov to check for any updates that may be available on this case.
@Niner
Click to expand...

This notice pertains to KM's July 2019 arrest for violation of protective order.
Trying to keep it straight!

@Niner

__________________

Defendant Information
Last, First: MAWHINNEY KENT DOUGLAS
Represented By: 007660 BUTLER N & GOLD
Birth Year: 1965 Times on the Docket: 18
Docket Information
Docket No: H14H-CR19-0281509-T Arresting Agency: LOCAL POLICE SOUTH WINDSOR
Companion:
Program: Arrest Date: 7/5/2019
Court: Hartford GA 14 Bond Amount: $500 (This case only)
Bond Type: Cash
Miscellaneous: (Released From Custody)
Activity: Awaiting Disposition Next Court Date: 3/4/2021 10:00 AM
Current Charges
Statute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding
53a-223* VIOLATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER D Felony 1 6/26/2019 Not Guilty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 110 more.
Total: 2,507 (members: 111, guests: 2,396)

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
2,396
Total visitors
2,507
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,542
Messages
18,142,257
Members
231,433
Latest member
NysesPieces
Back
Top