Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #56

[Laughing]

Re: Gloria Farber at the hearing -- also a reminder that this was NOT a so-called victimless crime, there are multiple victims and their rights matter at least as much as MT's (and the taxpayers, of course)imho.


PickPic.com

These children have family support but are orphans!

They will likely Google their parents' names in the future.

MT portrays herself in the media, imho.

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[Cloudydiamond]

Re: Gloria Farber at the hearing -- also a reminder that this was NOT a so-called victimless crime, there are multiple victims and their rights matter at least as much as MT's (and the taxpayers, of course)imho.

View attachment 441777
PickPic.com

These children have family support but are orphans!

They will likely Google their parents' names in the future.

MT portrays herself in the media, imho.

jmho ymmv lrr

Most are all old enough to already know and googled. It's absolutely heartbreaking. Thank God for the support these children most likely received.

 

[Seattle1]

If MT goes to trial, confirmation by the prosecutor that KM will be a state witness at her trial. Recap on KM's meeting with investigators and his release from jail on $246K reduced bond after ten months in jail:

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/lo...roconis-to-appear-for-hearing-in-15917871.php
Feb. 2, 2021Updated: Feb. 2, 2021 5:50 p.m.

STAMFORD — Fotis Dulos’ longtime friend and former attorney plans to testify against his ex-girlfriend in the Jennifer Dulos case, a prosecutor confirmed Tuesday.

During a virtual court hearing, Assistant State’s Attorney Daniel Cummings said Kent Mawhinney will be among the state’s witnesses if Michelle Troconis’ case heads to trial.

“Obviously, that could change,” Cummings added.

[..]

After 10 months in jail, Mawhinney was released on a reduced bond in October. The release occurred about six weeks after he met with state police investigators, according to Troconis’ attorney, Jon Schoenhorn.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Schoenhorn questioned the validity of Mawhinney’s statements made during the videotaped interview in August. Schoenhorn, who received the video in November as part of the discovery process in the case, called Mawhinney a “jailhouse informant” who was trying “to exonerate himself from any misconduct.”

[..]

In the video, Schoenhorn said Mawhinney claimed that Troconis and Fotis Dulos tried to “solicit him” in a conspiracy to “do away” with Jennifer Dulos.

Through court motions, Schoenhorn has sought to determine whether Mawhinney has received any preferential treatment or consideration from the state following the meeting with investigators.

Schoenhorn filed a motion in December, seeking information “pertaining to consideration, rewards or understanding regarding favorable treatment, compensation or reward of any kind in exchange for Mawhinney’s cooperation with the state, the investigation or prosecution of this case.”

Mawhinney, 55, was released from jail last October after posting a $246,000 bond after months of incarceration. Chief State’s Attorney Richard Colangelo Jr. did not object to the release and no bond hearing was held.

"Mawhinney is now the star witness," Schoenhorn said in an interview with Hearst Connecticut Media. "I had assumed that since he was released, he had to give them something because he was released without any pushback from prosecutors."

Cummings said Mawhinney was not considered the state’s primary witness, but is “one piece out of many pieces that point to the defendant’s guilt in this case.”

 

[Seattle1]

KM's case has been lingering time wise behind MT's I believe for a reason - I think KM has already signaled his desire to make a deal. If not and they make a deal with MT they are signaling to KM that they are willing to bargain with him.

The court would prefer a plea imo. It frees up their resources etc and closes the case. I personally don't want to speculate on what Gloria should or should not do in relation to a plea or whether she should take it to court.
I also think that the prosecution will advise GF and what they think their odds are in court.

Just my opinion - ianal - Hopefully @Seattle1 will come by and weigh in !

Taking into account that the prosecutor decides the initial type and number of charges for each case, it follows that this is both true for trials and plea agreements. In so doing, the prosecutor establishes the upper limits of penalty possibilities — the starting point of negotiation.

To ensure the best possible negotiating position for their office, the prosecutor generally brings the most serious supportable (winnable) charges against the individual, even when lesser charges are an option.

This makes a negotiated plea more attractive to the defense, which knows that the prosecutor can use their discretion to lower the charges and associated penalty if the individual accepts a plea rather than a trial. However, ultimately, the judge has the final say to accept or reject a negotiated plea deal.

In this case, the prosecutor has already confirmed that KM will be a witness for the state if MT goes to trial.

In the video of KM meeting with Investigators about 6 weeks before his release on a reduced bond of $246K, Schoenhorn said KM claimed that MT and Fd tried to “solicit him” in a conspiracy to “do away” with Jennifer.

Schoenhorn, who received the video in November as part of the discovery process in the case, called Mawhinney a “jailhouse informant” who was trying “to exonerate himself from any misconduct.”

Personally, I think KM will change his plea regardless of whether or not MT changes her plea, or if he testifies against MT.

Through court motions, Schoenhorn has sought to determine whether Mawhinney has received any preferential treatment or consideration from the state following the meeting with investigators.

Schoenhorn filed a motion in December, seeking information “pertaining to consideration, rewards or understanding regarding favorable treatment, compensation or reward of any kind in exchange for Mawhinney’s cooperation with the state, the investigation or prosecution of this case.”

"Mawhinney is now the star witness," Schoenhorn said in an interview with Hearst Connecticut Media. "I had assumed that since he was released, he had to give them something because he was released without any pushback from prosecutors."

Cummings said Mawhinney was not considered the state’s primary witness, but is “one piece out of many pieces that point to the defendant’s guilt in this case.”

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Michelle-Troconis-to-appear-for-hearing-in-15917871.php

 

[pernickety]

The way it went was, at first JS was saying that the crimes she was accused of would have been committed in Farmington, so she should be tried there, and he actually has a point, in my opinion. And yes, that motion was denied (not sure if it was Blawie). Now, he and MT are all over the place claiming that she cannot get a fair trial in Stamford because of all of the media attention. The problem with that argument is that there would be no media attention if those two would shut up, like Kent Mawhinney has. He keeps yapping to the press, some of which is actually friendly, like Lisa Backus, and Erin Moriarty. And she is all over X (formerly Twitter), shooting off her disgusting mouth about how she is being victimized by an anti-Michelle press, and all of the people following it. She and Schoenhorn are creating their own circus to start with. At this point, I don’t think it matters where her trial is held-I don’t think their smokescreen is going to help. She really is despicable.

Back then I found some legal source on the web that said a conspiracy case should be tried at a court venue serving the district where main crime was committed. In this case, the murder (not the disposal of the evidence or the conspiracy to murder).

 

[Jmoose]

Back then I found some legal source on the web that said a conspiracy case should be tried at a court venue serving the district where main crime was committed. In this case, the murder (not the disposal of the evidence or the conspiracy to murder).

I see-well, that explains why JS’s previous demands to have the trial moved because Stamford wasn’t the appropriate venue were unsuccessful, and why he is now trying to use the “she can’t find a fair and impartial jury in Stamford” argument. The truth is that the media has actually been quite objective in her case. There actually would be little discussion about her in the media if her defense would stop making ridiculous motions in court. And if she would stay off of Twitter. She is the source of all scrutiny-she is trying to manufacture some antagonism, from what I’ve seen.

 

[Jmoose]

Can someone refresh my memory about the time when MT went to, I guess it was a courthouse in NYC, to access the Farber trust documents? What exactly was she doing, and what was the timeframe? Was it before or after Jennifer was murdered? I tried to find the discussion of it, but don’t know when it was. Interesting that on twitter (X), she makes a number of comments about anyone can access documents and it’s $1/page to copy them. Not sure if she is trying to minimize the significance of doing such a thing, or what.

 

[Jmoose]

If MT knew that fD was getting the kids for a scheduled visitation the weekend that Jennifer was murdered, why didn’t she assume that she and her daughter would have to vacate the home at 4JX, and plan accordingly for it? I know, I know!!! It’s because she knew Jennifer wasn’t around to kick up a fuss about the kids being in the presence of fD’s paramour and her child.

 

[pernickety]

Can someone refresh my memory about the time when MT went to, I guess it was a courthouse in NYC, to access the Farber trust documents? What exactly was she doing, and what was the timeframe? Was it before or after Jennifer was murdered? I tried to find the discussion of it, but don’t know when it was. Interesting that on twitter (X), she makes a number of comments about anyone can access documents and it’s $1/page to copy them. Not sure if she is trying to minimize the significance of doing such a thing, or what.

It was a probate court in NY, I think. I think Weinstein asked MT about it in deposing her in the civil case. Discussion here was shortly after I got on this forum. I asked if it was when MT got leave from court (after her first arrest) to go to NYC, but then came back shortly afterward, claiming her GPS wasn't working. Someone on this forum got huffy about my question and said MT visit to PC wasn't after JD's disappearance but before--tho' didn't give any details, IIRC

 

[Jmoose]

It was a probate court in NY, I think. I think Weinstein asked MT about it in deposing her in the civil case. Discussion here was shortly after I got on this forum. I asked if it was when MT got leave from court (after her first arrest) to go to NYC, but then came back shortly afterward, claiming her GPS wasn't working. Someone on this forum got huffy about my question and said MT visit to PC wasn't after JD's disappearance but before--tho' didn't give any details, IIRC

Well, doing it before Jennifer’s murder makes it much worse, I think. I’m sorry somebody was huffy about it to you-not kind. This is the kind of stuff that sits in the back of my head, contributing to my thinking that she is anything but innocent of the charges. She may not understand that she didn’t have to be present and active when Jennifer was murdered, and that she didn’t have to touch her remains, in order to be part of this conspiracy. There just seem to be too many things that point to her involvement-things that a person wouldn’t ordinarily do, and that she cannot explain. On Facebook someone suggested that her team may be stretching this period before trial out, so JS can argue this last 4 years as her “confinement”, and thus, time already served so she doesn’t spend time in prison. And-it could end up that way, but she’d still be a convicted felon.

 

[pernickety]

Well, doing it before Jennifer’s murder makes it much worse, I think. I’m sorry somebody was huffy about it to you-not kind. This is the kind of stuff that sits in the back of my head, contributing to my thinking that she is anything but innocent of the charges. She may not understand that she didn’t have to be present and active when Jennifer was murdered, and that she didn’t have to touch her remains, in order to be part of this conspiracy. There just seem to be too many things that point to her involvement-things that a person wouldn’t ordinarily do, and that she cannot explain. On Facebook someone suggested that her team may be stretching this period before trial out, so JS can argue this last 4 years as her “confinement”, and thus, time already served so she doesn’t spend time in prison. And-it could end up that way, but she’d still be a convicted felon.

Yes, if MT went there before JD's disappearance, her visit to the probate court to look at the records of JD's father's estate would be very supportive of the conspiracy claim, IMO. I assume LE has studied her deposition in the civil case, even tho' she didn't answer much of anything, relying on advice of her counsel. I'd assume LE would send someone to that PC to see if there's a record of her signing in to look at the file.

 

[Jmoose]

Yes, if MT went there before JD's disappearance, her visit to the probate court to look at the records of JD's father's estate would be very supportive of the conspiracy claim, IMO. I assume LE has studied her deposition in the civil case, even tho' she didn't answer much of anything, relying on advice of her counsel. I'd assume LE would send someone to that PC to see if there's a record of her signing in to look at the file.

Could she sign in as someone other than herself, or do they look at your ID?

 

[Megnut]

Could she sign in as someone other than herself, or do they look at your ID?

I wonder if she used Jennifer's credentials. And expired passport as ID, for instance, something FD might have convenient access to.

Jmo

 

[Jmoose]

I wonder if she used Jennifer's credentials. And expired passport as ID, for instance, something FD might have convenient access to.

Jmo

If she did that, how did they discover that she went there-video?

 

[Megnut]

If she did that, how did they discover that she went there-video?

I tried to find the original discussion on that, in an earlier thread somewhere. Without success. I wanted to refresh the details for myself. I can't seem to recall the timing or the discovery.

Jmo

 

[Jmoose]

I tried to find the original discussion on that, in an earlier thread somewhere. Without success. I wanted to refresh the details for myself. I can't seem to recall the timing or the discovery.

Jmo

Same here-I used the search function but didn’t get exactly what I was looking for. But Atty Weinstein knew what he was looking for, and I feel sure that the State if CT does, too.

 

[Seattle1]

Same here-I used the search function but didn’t get exactly what I was looking for. But Atty Weinstein knew what he was looking for, and I feel sure that the State if CT does, too.

I didn't find the discussion where MT went to NY to view Hilliard's probate docs but I was reminded of when Fd took the stand to defend himself against having a $2M loan from Hilliard shown on his 2016 tax return, and how the following year, Fd tried to get his tax accountant to convert this outstanding loan payable to equity, without any backup for this transaction, and when the accountant refused, Fd found somebody else to do his taxes.

Since an accountant for Hilliard's Estate also testified that the financials for the Estate also reported Fd was indebted to him for the outstanding loan, I believe the timing of MT poking around the probate records -- was probably consistent with the time period of the hearing, and where MT was trying to confirm if Fd was reported as one of the Estate's debtors-- before Fd perjured himself, again.

Yes, similar to when NP held his head in his hands when it was revealed that Fd ran the expense for tickets for lavish foreign trips through his company's books for himself, MT, and her daughter dating back to 2015, two years before Jennifer filed for divorce, which he previously denied. MOO

Oh man... shameless Fd actually testified it wasn't that he expected to continue receiving a $14K annual financial gift (exclusion limit) from GF even after Jennifer filed for divorce, and was now missing, but that was the "agreement."

Fotis Dulos arrives in court to testify in civil case | Daily Mail Online

Dec 3, 2019

Fotis Dulos was funding a jet-set lifestyle for him and his girlfriend Michelle Troconis for years before he and his now missing wife Jennifer started divorce proceedings, it was claimed on Tuesday at a civil trial over $2.5million he allegedly owes his in-laws.

[...]

While he awaits his next court appearance in the criminal case, Dulos is simultaneously being sued by his ex-wife's mother, Gloria Farber, who says he owes her $2.5million in unpaid loans.

The lawsuit was filed in January 2018, 18 months before Jennifer disappeared.

In a risky and unorthodox move on Tuesday, Fotis decided to take the stand in that case, despite exposing himself to questions about Jennifer, their marriage and their life which could later be used against him in the criminal trial.

A forensic accountant also told the court he had been paying for flights for him, Troconis, and Troconis' son [daughter] to exotic locations since 2015 - two years before Jennifer filed for divorce.

He and Troconis had been having an affair but he resolved to save his marriage after Jennifer found out. She then later filed for divorce.

According to The New York Post, Dulos was surprised when the flights were brought up in court on Tuesday.

His criminal attorney, Norm Pattis, who was there to watch the proceedings, put his head in his hands, the newspaper reported.

Fotis himself took the stand.

He was at first questioned about his business and his relationship with his late father-in-law, Hilliard, who he said was 'like a second father to him'.

He said that in the beginning, the money was intended as a loan but that as he progressed in business, Hilliard said he no longer had to pay him back.

While it was not about Jennifer's disappearance, anything he says about their marriage could be used as part of the criminal case.

Early on Tuesday morning, his attorney Norm Pattis told CBS This Morning: 'These commercial transactions took place years ago.

'We don't think they shed any light whatsoever on the criminal allegations,' he said.

[..]

He has dismissed their claims in interviews saying he does not owe them anything.

[..]

The first witness called on Tuesday was retired attorney John Schmitt who was the executor of Jennifer's late father, Hilliard's, estate.

Next was an accountant who said in a 2016 tax return, Fotis noted in company documents a loan from Hilliard for $2million.

The next year, the accountant claims Fotis asked him to move it from accounts payable to equity. When he refused, Fotis, he alleged, had someone else do it.

 

[pernickety]

If she did that, how did they discover that she went there-video?

A court clerk might have tipped off someone--either the trustee of the trust or even Gloria.

 

[Trinitee]

GF was definitely there, with all of her weight, to make her presence very well known. It was an extremely polite and astute way of Informing all parties involved that it is time to stop the bs because this show is getting on the road and if you do not like it I dare you to try me! Silent…but quite deadly.

 

[Jmoose]

GF was definitely there, with all of her weight, to make her presence very well known. It was an extremely polite and astute way of Informing all parties involved that it is time to stop the bs because this show is getting on the road and if you do not like it I dare you to try me! Silent…but quite deadly.

Yep, I get it. Not sure the Troconis coven has gotten it, though-they still hold Jennifer ad mostly responsible for MT’s predicament. Even after MT lived in Jennifer’s house, ate her food, used her furniture, and drove her car(s). Because Fotis had nothing that didn’t originate with Jennifer and her family.