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

[Diddian]

My personal takeaway on the morning:

LA is rock solid. As a witness. As a human being. Remarkable the steady dedication.

It makes me ANGRY that FD got angry with her, accused her of abducting the children.

With Gloria, she is RAISING the children.

Orphaned at the hands of FD. They were not property, to be bandied about, playthings to dangle his fast lifestyle in front of.

What's that book? About Fear? LA trusted her gut. Thanks to her quick thinking and Gloria's smart protection, we have no additional casualties...

Both Jennifer's fear and Jennifer's love found voice today.

JMO

Megnut, thank you so much for your posts throughout the trial so far. Very helpful in keeping up and on point. You are a gem.

 

[Mimi in London]

My personal takeaway on the morning:

LA is rock solid. As a witness. As a human being. Remarkable the steady dedication.

It makes me ANGRY that FD got angry with her, accused her of abducting the children.

With Gloria, she is RAISING the children.

Orphaned at the hands of FD. They were not property, to be bandied about, playthings to dangle his fast lifestyle in front of.

What's that book? About Fear? LA trusted her gut. Thanks to her quick thinking and Gloria's smart protection, we have no additional casualties...

Both Jennifer's fear and Jennifer's love found voice today.

JMO

Yes. LA is a Godsend for that family. And a thoroughly likeable and straightforward witness.

I'm impressed with the prosecution's questions. They've asked her just enough to elicit responses that paint a picture of FD's personality and JFd's fear, and establish the relationship with MT. I'm sure they had a lot more material they could use, but IMO even with the Porsche piece excluded, the testimony is quietly powerful.

 

[pernickety]

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!

My own thoughts: Why was JS discussing all the DNA/testing stuff with the judge, rather than taking it up in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and providing expert witnesses for the defense to refute findings/methods?

 

[Niner]

I shall use this article in my notes for reference.

https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-trial-dulos-day-4-live-updates-18612375.php

 

[shotgun09]

I noticed also the intense focus on Pavel G, while the defense attorney was questioning Lauren A. IMO, the cats out of the bag, as far as all the evidence and testimony given so far, and the defense is now turning towards PG...their next nemesis.

You know....PG...the dastardly dude who worked for FD, in a squirrel costume wearing rusty ice skates and carrying cheeseburgers covered with horseradish around garages....that guy. Yeah, and he also saved those dirty car seats too.

Mercy

 

[citygirl]

Isn’t that the translator you’re hearing? It’s super distracting, but I think by design. Someone I know who has been in the courtroom two of the three days said it’s annoying, and the translator is fairly close to the jury.

Can't help but ask. What are her observations from the courtroom? Unable to pm you.

 

[carolmaria]

I noticed also the intense focus on Pavel G, while the defense attorney was questioning Lauren A. IMO, the cats out of the bag, as far as all the evidence and testimony given so far, and the defense is now turning towards PG...their next nemesis.

You know....PG...the dastardly dude who worked for FD, in a squirrel costume wearing rusty ice skates and carrying cheeseburgers covered with horseradish around garages....that guy. Yeah, and he also saved those dirty car seats too.

Mercy

Yup, IMO also the defense line of questioning seems to be attempting to lead LA toward admitting that the marriage was unusually distant for a long time before MT came into the picture, underscoring MT's contention on Twit that JFd and FD were essentially leading separate lives, and that MT initially assumed an amicable separation was taking place. Poor girl was duped, not a predator. Blech.

 

[Megnut]

Lord.

Back live, no jury.
Member of the prosecution (Liz Moran) crossed paths with two alternate jurors, escorted by marshalls exiting the elevator. Member of Counsel immediately turned away. Marshall said, "Liz, we love you."

JS says he believes it to accidental, only wants the jurors to be admonished to disregard anything they hear in the hallways.

Judge agrees.

Moran is not a presenting attorney, simply aiding counsel with exhibits.

 

[Megnut]

Now JS is bringing up the stricken gun.

JS says prior gun ownership is prejudicial and inflammatory and cannot be brought in as hearsay.

Calls for mistrial.

Judge denies. Swiftly.

 

[Megnut]

Jury in place.

Judge is admonishing the jury regarding the statement directed at Atty Moran. A complimentary comment.

The judge is underscoring that that comment is an endorsement of the strength of the case.

If you hear any other comments which don't go toward the strength of the case, if you think it should be brought to the attention of the court, alert the court. If you don't think so, don't. But if it goes to the strength of the case, you must alert the court.

 

[afitzy]

Now JS is bringing up the stricken gun.

JS says prior gun ownership is prejudicial and inflammatory and cannot be brought in as hearsay.

Calls for mistrial.

Judge denies. Swiftly.

Hail Mary Pass yet again denied. Buckle up because there will no doubt be more. Glad the Judge is measured and methodical to protect the record.

 

[LosAngeles]

I notice MT is chewing gum, which is a big No No in any courtroom. Again, rules do not apply to her, not to mention unladylike. Not surprised.

 

[carolmaria]

What happened to Felsen’s voice? She’s gotten all sweet and cloying…

I sense a setup…

Sorry, all MOO.

 

[afitzy]

I notice MT is chewing gum, which is a big No No in any courtroom. Again, rules do not apply to her, not to mention unladylike. Not surprised.

Do wonder if it’s nicotine gum as allegedly she is back to smoking.

 

[Megnut]

LA back on cross. FD was very competitive, but just with water-skiing. Taught the Cindy's to ski, compete. Taught LA to ski, drive the boat.

Now we're seeing a group photo. Including among others FD, MT, two Dulos boys, MT's daughter.

Describing a photo.

Defense asks about FD's short hair.

Defense asks LA if she ever shaved FD's hair. No.

Several more photos of FD with short hair.

 

[Diddian]

Judge interrupts questioning and announces that something has come up that he must deal with, excuses the jury, and then indicates that everyone must leave the courtroom. No idea why.

 

[Megnut]

Defense brings up the affair.

The defense is ah testifying? MOO that JL was dating FD while he was still married. LA was unaware of this details.

Judge stops proceedings.

Something brought to his attention that he needs to address immediately.

Not an afternoon recess.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Maybe my memory is failing me, but wasn't the 1st divorce of FD an amicable one and the fact he was dating JFD just a matter of paperwork not being finalized yet? Not like they are trying to infer that JFD was a homewrecker like MT.

 

[Diddian]

Maybe my memory is failing me, but wasn't the 1st divorce of FD an amicable one and the fact he was dating JFD just a matter of paperwork not being finalized yet? Not like they are trying to infer that JFD was a homewrecker like MT.

Yes, amicable. And there were no children from that marriage.

 

[Megnut]

Court is live. No jury.

Back on the record.

Judge has to address a matter. Regarding the Marshall. The complimentary remark was made by A JUROR.