Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #58

[doodles1211]

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.

New Canaan Police search for missing woman

Media thread:
CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, Media, Maps, Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14
Thread #15[/B] Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 #15 *ARRESTS*
Thread #16 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #16
Thread #17 Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #17
Thread #18 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #18
Thread #19 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #19
Thread #20 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #20
Thread #21 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #21
Thread #22 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #22
Thread #23 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #23
Thread #24 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #24
Thread #25 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #25
Thread #26 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #26
Thread #27 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #27
Thread #28 - Silver Alert - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #28
Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread #31 Thread #32 Thread #33 Thread #34 Thread #35 Thread #36 Thread #37 Thread #38 Thread #39 Thread #40 Thread #41 Thread #42 Thread #43 Thread #44 Thread #45 Deceased/Not Found - CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #46 Thread #47 Thread #48 Thread #49 Thread #50 Thread #51 Thread #52 Thread #53 Thread #54 Thread #55Thread #56Thread #57

 

[Knitty]

Please continue the discussion here.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Court is live now

 

[Megnut]

JS is back at it, arguing about DNA. I am trying to understand but he just braided my brain.

Jmo

 

[nodamselindistress]

He is arguing against some proprietary program the State is using to determine odds that the DNA belongs to specific people

 

[Megnut]

He is arguing about a propriety algorithm that shows odds of a sample DNA match.

Hello.

That's how it works!

He is going to challenge all of DNA science!

JMO

 

[shotgun09]

He doesn't like the 'odds' that will show against his client.
His presumed 'odds' are better...he just doesn't have them...
Carry on...

 

[LosAngeles]

Judges expression looks like he hoping for Divine Intervention.

 

[SkylarSid]

Unreal. Only JS knows that the equation of the trillionths of an odd Is not scientifically reliable, which warrants the judge to ask what equation he uses for proprietary entity. Where is his expert for this word salad?

 

[Snoopster]

I think I'll tune out and check back in a bit later. I can't listen to this guy.

 

[shotgun09]

Judge is allowing this BS to continue...waiting for the final call.

While we wait..
The definition of Bloviate:

verb
informal•US
verb: bloviate; 3rd person present: bloviates; past tense: bloviated; past participle: bloviated; gerund or present participle: bloviating

1. talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.
   "when so many people are bloviating, it's easy to dismiss all discourse as chatter"

 

[Megnut]

He's talking about a Montoff Chain Monte Carlo (I'm going completely off phonetics snd memory)...(eager to see what it actually is)

The Likelihood Ratio

I love this judge. He's very measured. JS doesn't like the program. Calls it mysterious. Says no one knows how they arrive at their so called odds.

He's not challenging the part where they separate out a number of people contributing and what %age. Deconvolution.

He's only challenging the odds. Claims it's not scientific. A secret.

The judge is concerned that it's not peer reviewed but queries whether it could be reviewed without violating the proprietary aspect of it.

JS says he could object to the whole process but he's limiting his objection.

Says he wouldn't be able to cross examine on this, that it would just be numbers to the jury and prejudicial making it appear is more significant than it is.

He said billions to one. [I'm putting a pin in that.]

Judge is exclaiming now how the Likelihood Ratio in terms of probability. Judge asks why this would be more or less unfavorable to the defense or prosecution.

JS is using the example of Jennifer's own toothbrush to show how it should produce a probability of how likely a sample matched to Jennifer. Yes, that's how it works.

Now he's taking about the process with partial DNA [I think he means mixed samples]... he's back to objecting to the odds. The calculation he says is prejudicial.

Judge says peer review isn't the only way you determine if a process is valid.

[I think he objecting that the language doesn't say it's a match, it gives a probability with very big numbers. I don't think he wants the jury to hear those very big numbers.]

 

[afitzy]

I don't think there has been a trial in recent history where I can recall that every time Defence Counsel utters a word, makes a statement or draws a conclusion in a statement that I then I find it hard to believe they are following the rules of the Court or presenting any aspect of self proclaimed truth based on verifiable fact (and this relates to case references and explanations of law too imo which makes this all so much harder to watch) in their defence of their client.

This is honestly is a horrible feeling to have about any defence counsel but so many things have been seen so far in this case (who knows about the things unseen imo), including the withholding of the alleged FD black hoodie (trial evidence) for over a year without presenting it to law enforcement or clearly explaining how it came into his possession or even the Family Court document from the Dulos divorce which were presented as 'fact' yesterday when they were anything but as that Court never accepted the referred to Court Document to its record, the associated Dr was discredited and the conclusions of the report which was sealed and limited to only parties of the divorce case YET was presented yesterday by Js as 'facts' to the Court with no objection either from State or Judge.

Atty Pattis imo also impacted me in a similar way but not to the degree of JS but perhaps that is because I read all his motions in the case and did research on his citations and references to feel a bit more comfortable as to matters of law. I frankly gave up reading Js motions after doing so for nearly two years simply due to imo non relevant imo citations, misstatement of fact and imo logical fails on conclusions drawn that there weren't enough hours in the day to stay current on all court documents of Js.

IMO feeling this way (whether I'm correct or not, who knows) makes this JS testimony and eventual cross examination so difficult to process and frankly to accept as it impacts the trial record and the juries ability to understand the presentation of evidence imo.

Defence plays a key and absolutely vital role in the US system but to have the feeling as a trial watcher that someone isn't playing by the rules on a consistent basis and sees no issues with that choice is something I have a difficult time processing.

I think its the statements made where a 'conclusion' is drawn (oftentimes using data that imo is not consistently factual) that imo can be so damaging, particularly to the jury, as just this am I found at least 5 statements over a short period of time that I believe to be factually incorrect, not challenged and let to fly into the case record.

We saw yesterday many similar examples with the most notable being statements about Dr Hermans report, FD parenting skills and disparaging remarks and yet more 'conclusions based on 'factual information' by Js and Dr Herman'.

How is this all being able to 'fly' in this courtroom. I have 'at best' a basic level of understanding of presumptive testing and DNA analysis and yet still found many statements and conclusions drawn by Js to be simply wrong and false.

Just putting this out there in case others are listening and thinking similar thoughts.

Most definitely MOO!

 

[nodamselindistress]

JS never directly answers Your Honor's questions so while he throw around alot of seemingly knowledgeable talk I am inclined to believe he has no clue

 

[Megnut]

The State is calling STR mix reliable and accepted in the scientific community.

 

[SkylarSid]

I turned this on after JS started this insane line of reasoning so I am not sure, but has the jury been seated? I sure hope not.

 

[nodamselindistress]

I turned this on after JS started this insane line of reasoning so I am not sure, but has the jury been seated? I sure hope not.

No jury not present

 

[Diddian]

Who is talking and can be heard on their microphone WHILE Judge Randolph is speaking? Very distracting.

 

[Megnut]

The judge is laying out his reasoning

Judge denies request for the hearing.

 

[Megnut]

Who is talking and can be heard on their microphone WHILE Judge Randolph is speaking? Very distracting.

I believe that's MT's interpreter.

Jmo