Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #59

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Witness was the Evidence Officer for the whole case. Processing the Jeep for evidence related to the missing person case.

So far no objections from JS as batches of photos are offered.

Until now. JS objects, wants to know if anything was seized? State objects. Judge disallows JS's question but allows him to continue voir dire.

JS as about who took the photos, etc. Objects to relevance.

State answers. She explains how the photographs go toward process, inventory will follow.

JS objects to his objection. Just because the Fore Group owned something that had stuff in it, isn't relevant.

State argues the validity of the investigation process. Abd the relevancy of the Jeep

Judge overrules JS.
 
The White Jeep was owned by FORE but was MT PRIMARY VEHICLE. Not relevant? It is highly relevant. So glad the State stayed the course and battled this ridiculous interpretation of "Relevancy" in this case.

Glad Judge cited code and explained it to the Jury so as to take this ongoing time waster and improper objection from Defence off the table for future debate. I'm waiting for the Judge to answer back, "asked and answered counsel"!

Just wanted to ask the question about the White Jeep that the AA I posted earlier listed this vehicle as having a CT license plate but we had seen prior comments about FL licence plate. Does anyone understand where the FL license plate on this vehicle first entered the discussion? I'm confused.

MOO
 
Last edited:
Photos admitted.

Seeing the Jeep in the Trooper garage.

Looking for anything related to the disappearance of missing person JFD.

No swabbing, nothing seized.

Photo of rear cargo

Construction tools
Paper towels

Items laid out on butcher paper

Contents of glove box contents and side compartments
 
The White Jeep was owned by FORE but was MT PRIMARY VEHICLE. Not relevant? It is highly relevant. So glad the State stayed the course and battled this ridiculous interpretation of "Relevancy" in this case.

Glad Judge cited code and explained it to the Jury so as to take this ongoing time waster and improper objection from Defence.

MOO
(Snipped for focus) Right?!? I mean, duh! I’m having visions of MT charging up the MS driveway in that vehicle, ahead of FD.

JS: “Don’t look there.” LOOK THERE.

MOO
 
JS objecting to the photo showing Luminol. JS says Luminol has no evidentiary value and will confuse the jury.
State counters with the State Police's actions as vehicles were processed. Goes to the thoroughness of the State's investigation.
Objection, overruled.
 
JS clarifying. He isn't arguing they didn't do everything. He's arguing that their investigation was biased. JS says 99% of what is shown is irrelevant to the case.
Says it'll be confusing to the jury.
Judge refers to an exercise in divination. He cannot deternine what is relevant at this point. Upholds the process.
Overruled.

Recess until 11:35
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
1,704
Total visitors
1,795

Forum statistics

Threads
606,477
Messages
18,204,504
Members
233,860
Latest member
Prairie Gurl
Back
Top