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

[Jmoose]

You mean the court date is only penciled in?
Say it isn't so.

I think the jury selection date lay be solid, but don’t be surprised if the actual trial ends up happening this Fall. Remember, JS demanded a speedy trial, but yesterday he also said he doesn’t think it’ll happen this Fall-and what would make him think that? Well, he knows what kind of motions he plans to make, so…

 

[Jmoose]

It's been so long that I am completely out of sync with the characters. Can only think of his worker PG. Didn't he make some unsavory observations of her?
MOO

PG made some unsavory remarks? About who(m)?

 

[shotgun09]

I assumed he was talking about her parents. What witnesses could they be, if not her parents? He is absolutely going to ask them to explain the irrelevent issues like “when did your daughter start schtupping I mean “dating” Mr. Dulos?” “What did Mr. Dulos tell you about his marital status, and what did he say were his intentions toward your daughter?” “How did your daughter get along with Mr. Dulos’s children”? Half of the case will be all bullcrap-and then he’ll harangue the legitimate witnesses for the prosecution, like the police detectives and Pawel Gumienny. And wait until you see what he does to Kent Mawhinney. The saving grace there, is that I think KM is up to the abuse-and he also deserves it, so I don’t feel sorry at all for him.

Haha!!

You said " schtupping " !!!
I needed that laugh! Thank you!!

(Miss my da...)

 

[Jmoose]

Haha!!

You said " schtupping " !!!
I needed that laugh! Thank you!!

(Miss my da...)

Well, schtupping is really what they were doing, right? I mean, “dating” sounds far too tame!

 

[Seattle1]

I, too, am amazed!

Now I begin to wonder who will be witnesses for both sides. I saw the NBC CT news video in which Schoenhorn references out-of-state witnesses, older witnesses, etc. Who could those possibly be? I imagine JS will be calling experts. Maybe they are old experts?

Who do you think the state will call? In some states potential witness lists are made public. Does CT allow these to be made public before trials? How are witnesses going to be deposed in the 3-week timeframe?

Maybe the State should have a few Websleuthers who know the details more than JS advising them.

Pursuant to Sec. 40-13A, we know that discovery of the witness list is due promptly but no later than 45 days from the filing of the request. Generally, the witness lists for each side are some of the first documents exchanged after charges are filed by the State.

SUPERIOR COURT—PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS Sec. 40-13A

Sec. 40-13. Names of Witnesses; Prior Record of Witnesses; Statements of Witnesses* (Amended June 22, 2009, to take effect Jan. 1, 2010.)

(a) Upon written request by a defendant filed in accordance with Section 41-5 and without requiring any order of the judicial authority, the prosecuting authority, subject to Section 40-40 et seq., shall promptly, but no later than forty-five days from the filing of the request, unless such time is extended by the judicial authority for good cause shown, disclose to the defendant the names and, subject to the provisions of subsections (f) and (g) of this section, the addresses of all witnesses that the prosecuting authority intends to call in his or her casein-chief. The prosecuting authority shall additionally make a reasonable affirmative effort to obtain a record of the witness’ felony convictions and pending misdemeanor and felony charges and shall disclose any such convictions and pending charges to the defendant.

(b) Upon written request by the prosecuting authority, filed in accordance with Section 41-5 and without requiring any order of the judicial authority, the defendant, subject to Section 40-40 et seq., shall promptly, but no later than forty-five days from the filing of the request, unless such time is extended by the judicial authority for good cause shown, disclose to the prosecuting authority the names and, subject to the provisions of subsection (g) of this section, the addresses of all witnesses whom the defendant intends to call in the defendant’s case-in-chief and shall additionally disclose to the prosecuting authority any statements of the witnesses other than the defendant in the possession of the defendant or his or her agents, which statements relate to the subject matter about which each witness will testify.

(c) No witness shall be precluded from testifying for any party because his or her name or statement or criminal history was not disclosed pursuant to this rule if the party calling such witness did not in good faith intend to call the witness at the time that he or she provided the material required by this rule. In the interests of justice the judicial authority may in its discretion permit any undisclosed individual to testify.

(d) The provisions of this section shall apply to any additional testimony presented by any party as rebuttal evidence pursuant to Section 42-35 (3) and the statements and criminal histories of such witnesses shall be provided to the opposing party before the commencement of any such rebuttal testimony.

(e) The fact that a witness’ name or statement is provided under this section shall not be a ground for comment upon a failure to call a witness.

(f) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the personal residence address of a police officer or correction officer shall not be required to be disclosed except pursuant to an order of the judicial authority after a hearing and a showing that good cause exists for the disclosure of the information.

(g) Upon written request of a party and for good cause shown, the judicial authority may order that the address of any witness whose name was disclosed pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of this section not be disclosed to the opposing party.


(P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 743.) (Amended June 22, 2009, to take effect Jan. 1, 2010; amended June 12, 2015, to take effect Jan. 1, 2016.) *APPENDIX NOTE: The Rules Committee of the Superior Court enacted, and the judges of the Superior Court subsequently adopted, certain changes to the provisions of this rule in response to the public health and civil preparedness emergencies declared on March 10, 2020, and renewed on September 1, 2020, and January 26, 2021. The public health emergency was renewed on June 28, 2022, and is scheduled to expire on December 28, 2022, or when the federal public health emergency ends. See Appendix of Section 1-9B Changes.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/publications/PracticeBook/PB.pdf

CT Code of Evidence:

Article VI—Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Article VII—Opinions and Expert Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

https://jud.ct.gov/Publications/Code2023.pdf

 

[Tink56]

Pursuant to Sec. 40-13A, we know that discovery of the witness list is due promptly but no later than 45 days from the filing of the request. Generally, the witness lists for each side are some of the first documents exchanged after charges are filed by the State.

SUPERIOR COURT—PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS Sec. 40-13A

Sec. 40-13. Names of Witnesses; Prior Record of Witnesses; Statements of Witnesses* (Amended June 22, 2009, to take effect Jan. 1, 2010.)

(a) Upon written request by a defendant filed in accordance with Section 41-5 and without requiring any order of the judicial authority, the prosecuting authority, subject to Section 40-40 et seq., shall promptly, but no later than forty-five days from the filing of the request, unless such time is extended by the judicial authority for good cause shown, disclose to the defendant the names and, subject to the provisions of subsections (f) and (g) of this section, the addresses of all witnesses that the prosecuting authority intends to call in his or her casein-chief. The prosecuting authority shall additionally make a reasonable affirmative effort to obtain a record of the witness’ felony convictions and pending misdemeanor and felony charges and shall disclose any such convictions and pending charges to the defendant.

(b) Upon written request by the prosecuting authority, filed in accordance with Section 41-5 and without requiring any order of the judicial authority, the defendant, subject to Section 40-40 et seq., shall promptly, but no later than forty-five days from the filing of the request, unless such time is extended by the judicial authority for good cause shown, disclose to the prosecuting authority the names and, subject to the provisions of subsection (g) of this section, the addresses of all witnesses whom the defendant intends to call in the defendant’s case-in-chief and shall additionally disclose to the prosecuting authority any statements of the witnesses other than the defendant in the possession of the defendant or his or her agents, which statements relate to the subject matter about which each witness will testify.

(c) No witness shall be precluded from testifying for any party because his or her name or statement or criminal history was not disclosed pursuant to this rule if the party calling such witness did not in good faith intend to call the witness at the time that he or she provided the material required by this rule. In the interests of justice the judicial authority may in its discretion permit any undisclosed individual to testify.

(d) The provisions of this section shall apply to any additional testimony presented by any party as rebuttal evidence pursuant to Section 42-35 (3) and the statements and criminal histories of such witnesses shall be provided to the opposing party before the commencement of any such rebuttal testimony.

(e) The fact that a witness’ name or statement is provided under this section shall not be a ground for comment upon a failure to call a witness.

(f) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the personal residence address of a police officer or correction officer shall not be required to be disclosed except pursuant to an order of the judicial authority after a hearing and a showing that good cause exists for the disclosure of the information.

(g) Upon written request of a party and for good cause shown, the judicial authority may order that the address of any witness whose name was disclosed pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of this section not be disclosed to the opposing party.


(P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 743.) (Amended June 22, 2009, to take effect Jan. 1, 2010; amended June 12, 2015, to take effect Jan. 1, 2016.) *APPENDIX NOTE: The Rules Committee of the Superior Court enacted, and the judges of the Superior Court subsequently adopted, certain changes to the provisions of this rule in response to the public health and civil preparedness emergencies declared on March 10, 2020, and renewed on September 1, 2020, and January 26, 2021. The public health emergency was renewed on June 28, 2022, and is scheduled to expire on December 28, 2022, or when the federal public health emergency ends. See Appendix of Section 1-9B Changes.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/publications/PracticeBook/PB.pdf

CT Code of Evidence:

Article VI—Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Article VII—Opinions and Expert Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

https://jud.ct.gov/Publications/Code2023.pdf

Thanks Seattle....If timelines remain, they should have been submitted two weeks ago?

I guess JS can claim the prosecution was withholding information? Not enough time to schedule his witnesses to arrive from out-of-town?

I can't wait for this to start, but they haven't even finished with the motions JS is still arguing. So puzzling.

 

[citygirl]

I assumed he was talking about her parents. What witnesses could they be, if not her parents? He is absolutely going to ask them to explain the irrelevent issues like “when did your daughter start schtupping I mean “dating” Mr. Dulos?” “What did Mr. Dulos tell you about his marital status, and what did he say were his intentions toward your daughter?” “How did your daughter get along with Mr. Dulos’s children”? Half of the case will be all bullcrap-and then he’ll harangue the legitimate witnesses for the prosecution, like the police detectives and Pawel Gumienny. And wait until you see what he does to Kent Mawhinney. The saving grace there, is that I think KM is up to the abuse-and he also deserves it, so I don’t feel sorry at all for him.

Do we know if it will be televised?

 

[citygirl]

I think the jury selection date lay be solid, but don’t be surprised if the actual trial ends up happening this Fall. Remember, JS demanded a speedy trial, but yesterday he also said he doesn’t think it’ll happen this Fall-and what would make him think that? Well, he knows what kind of motions he plans to make, so…

Missed those details. At least it's moving forward.

 

[Tink56]

I think the jury selection date lay be solid, but don’t be surprised if the actual trial ends up happening this Fall. Remember, JS demanded a speedy trial, but yesterday he also said he doesn’t think it’ll happen this Fall-and what would make him think that? Well, he knows what kind of motions he plans to make, so…

Thought about jury selection and then delaying the trial. That, IMO, would not work. You would have a potential jury sitting around, supposedly not being influenced by the media etc. for several months.

Again, IMO, that can't be allowed to happen. When I sat on criminal trial juries, the judge cautioned us the day of selection, and the court proceedings started the next day. Maybe CT is very different.

 

[Cloudydiamond]

I, too, am amazed!

Now I begin to wonder who will be witnesses for both sides. I saw the NBC CT news video in which Schoenhorn references out-of-state witnesses, older witnesses, etc. Who could those possibly be? I imagine JS will be calling experts. Maybe they are old experts?

Who do you think the state will call? In some states potential witness lists are made public. Does CT allow these to be made public before trials? How are witnesses going to be deposed in the 3-week timeframe?

Maybe the State should have a few Websleuthers who know the details more than JS advising them.

Marty may be a witness lol

 

[Jmoose]

Pursuant to Sec. 40-13A, we know that discovery of the witness list is due promptly but no later than 45 days from the filing of the request. Generally, the witness lists for each side are some of the first documents exchanged after charges are filed by the State.

SUPERIOR COURT—PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS Sec. 40-13A

Sec. 40-13. Names of Witnesses; Prior Record of Witnesses; Statements of Witnesses* (Amended June 22, 2009, to take effect Jan. 1, 2010.)

(a) Upon written request by a defendant filed in accordance with Section 41-5 and without requiring any order of the judicial authority, the prosecuting authority, subject to Section 40-40 et seq., shall promptly, but no later than forty-five days from the filing of the request, unless such time is extended by the judicial authority for good cause shown, disclose to the defendant the names and, subject to the provisions of subsections (f) and (g) of this section, the addresses of all witnesses that the prosecuting authority intends to call in his or her casein-chief. The prosecuting authority shall additionally make a reasonable affirmative effort to obtain a record of the witness’ felony convictions and pending misdemeanor and felony charges and shall disclose any such convictions and pending charges to the defendant.

(b) Upon written request by the prosecuting authority, filed in accordance with Section 41-5 and without requiring any order of the judicial authority, the defendant, subject to Section 40-40 et seq., shall promptly, but no later than forty-five days from the filing of the request, unless such time is extended by the judicial authority for good cause shown, disclose to the prosecuting authority the names and, subject to the provisions of subsection (g) of this section, the addresses of all witnesses whom the defendant intends to call in the defendant’s case-in-chief and shall additionally disclose to the prosecuting authority any statements of the witnesses other than the defendant in the possession of the defendant or his or her agents, which statements relate to the subject matter about which each witness will testify.

(c) No witness shall be precluded from testifying for any party because his or her name or statement or criminal history was not disclosed pursuant to this rule if the party calling such witness did not in good faith intend to call the witness at the time that he or she provided the material required by this rule. In the interests of justice the judicial authority may in its discretion permit any undisclosed individual to testify.

(d) The provisions of this section shall apply to any additional testimony presented by any party as rebuttal evidence pursuant to Section 42-35 (3) and the statements and criminal histories of such witnesses shall be provided to the opposing party before the commencement of any such rebuttal testimony.

(e) The fact that a witness’ name or statement is provided under this section shall not be a ground for comment upon a failure to call a witness.

(f) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the personal residence address of a police officer or correction officer shall not be required to be disclosed except pursuant to an order of the judicial authority after a hearing and a showing that good cause exists for the disclosure of the information.

(g) Upon written request of a party and for good cause shown, the judicial authority may order that the address of any witness whose name was disclosed pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of this section not be disclosed to the opposing party.


(P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 743.) (Amended June 22, 2009, to take effect Jan. 1, 2010; amended June 12, 2015, to take effect Jan. 1, 2016.) *APPENDIX NOTE: The Rules Committee of the Superior Court enacted, and the judges of the Superior Court subsequently adopted, certain changes to the provisions of this rule in response to the public health and civil preparedness emergencies declared on March 10, 2020, and renewed on September 1, 2020, and January 26, 2021. The public health emergency was renewed on June 28, 2022, and is scheduled to expire on December 28, 2022, or when the federal public health emergency ends. See Appendix of Section 1-9B Changes.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/publications/PracticeBook/PB.pdf

CT Code of Evidence:

Article VI—Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Article VII—Opinions and Expert Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

https://jud.ct.gov/Publications/Code2023.pdf

Thank you very much!

 

[Jmoose]

Do we know if it will be televised?

I don’t think CT televises-does anyone know for sure?

 

[Jmoose]

Thought about jury selection and then delaying the trial. That, IMO, would not work. You would have a potential jury sitting around, supposedly not being influenced by the media etc. for several months.

Again, IMO, that can't be allowed to happen. When I sat on criminal trial juries, the judge cautioned us the day of selection, and the court proceedings started the next day. Maybe CT is very different.

I was thinking the same thing, but working off of what JS actually said. Why would he request a speedy trial, and then say that he doesn’t think it’ll happen in the Fall?

 

[LosAngeles]

Marty may be a witness lol

Maybe Anna Curry? She was the one who signed a $ 3 million assurance note to Palmetto Surety Corporation that insured Dulos’ bond money. She paid $ 147,000 in cash to avail his bond following his arrest. I’m not sure what happened with her lawsuit, but maybe JS will call her as a witness. I wonder if she even knew MT? She's an out of towner. North Carolina girl.

 

[carolmaria]

Maybe Anna Curry? She was the one who signed a $ 3 million assurance note to Palmetto Surety Corporation that insured Dulos’ bond money. She paid $ 147,000 in cash to avail his bond following his arrest. I’m not sure what happened with her lawsuit, but maybe JS will call her as a witness. I wonder if she even knew MT? She's an out of towner. North Carolina girl.

Yes, she was one on my long-shot wish list!

 

[pernickety]

I, too, am amazed!

Now I begin to wonder who will be witnesses for both sides. I saw the NBC CT news video in which Schoenhorn references out-of-state witnesses, older witnesses, etc. Who could those possibly be? I imagine JS will be calling experts. Maybe they are old experts?

Who do you think the state will call? In some states potential witness lists are made public. Does CT allow these to be made public before trials? How are witnesses going to be deposed in the 3-week timeframe?

Maybe the State should have a few Websleuthers who know the details more than JS advising them.

Will the state call a witness from the NY probate court where MT might've been snooping into a certain file?

What about an expert on paper towels? Did the bloodied ones found in the bags disposed of in Hartford match the ones missing from JFD's NC home? Would have to call the nanny on that too, since she said she put the new pkg in mudroom the day before. (Remember Melanie McGuire trial, where an expert testified on garbage bags?) Also, wasn't it said that a cleaning woman came to the NC house that day? Maybe some neighbors who gave LE camera footage?

 

[Cloudydiamond]

Maybe Anna Curry? She was the one who signed a $ 3 million assurance note to Palmetto Surety Corporation that insured Dulos’ bond money. She paid $ 147,000 in cash to avail his bond following his arrest. I’m not sure what happened with her lawsuit, but maybe JS will call her as a witness. I wonder if she even knew MT? She's an out of towner. North Carolina girl.

Maybe, possibly is what I'm thinking. She truly believed that fD was innocent per conversations a friend had with her. Dulos was such a con

 

[Tink56]

Will the state call a witness from the NY probate court where MT might've been snooping into a certain file?

What about an expert on paper towels? Did the bloodied ones found in the bags disposed of in Hartford match the ones missing from JFD's NC home? Would have to call the nanny on that too, since she said she put the new pkg in mudroom the day before. (Remember Melanie McGuire trial, where an expert testified on garbage bags?) Also, wasn't it said that a cleaning woman came to the NC house that day? Maybe some neighbors who gave LE camera footage?

I was thinking about FD's sister, who would proclaim that FD found those clothes on his back patio and had to quickly get rid of them as MT would be upset.

 

[pernickety]

I was thinking about FD's sister, who would proclaim that FD found those clothes on his back patio and had to quickly get rid of them as MT would be upset.

The most important witness will be the state medical examiner--on the amount of JFD's bloodshed and whether she could have survived without medical attention.

 

[Jmoose]

Something occurred to me last week, and while it’s not particularly significant, I started wondering about it. I wonder if this will come up in Michelle Troconis’s trial. They (fD and MT) went to the trouble of taking cash out of the bank to pay for detailing OG’s truck. Normally, this could be considered a business expense, since PG’d had Dulos’s truck on the 24th, leaving fD with PG’s truck. FORE Group could have easily made a case for this being a business expense, and yet fD deliberately chose not to use one of his many credit cards to pay for it, and expense it. We know why he did this; he didn’t want any record of the activity. The question I have is why didn’t MT ask him about it, or tell the police about it? She wasn’t supposed to know that Jennifer’s blood was all over the truck, so why would she think it was appropriate to pay cash for deep cleaning the truck? It’s possible that she doesn’t understand the accounting process, but I think it’s clear that this outing was not supposed to be discovered, which says to me that, at the very, very least, she was an accessory after the fact. Of course, I also think she knew in advance of the murder and helped concoct the plan. She’s going to be going to prison for something, it seems.