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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doh.

After rereading this AA, the time for which FD and the Tacoma are MIA -- FD had to return to the area of Welles to retrieve his beloved Mercer bike. That accounts for some of those minutes....

I did not realize it was a 20-minute bicycle ride from where he parked the Tacoma (at Waveny) that morning and Welles.

All these minute details are suddenly so stark, now that I've seen the bloody shirt...bra...ponchos.

Such self-smug evil. Groupthink, that much worse.

JMO
Here is the map detailing bike timing and routes assuming a Lapham Rd starting point. But, I'm not sure that this was where FD started as if he had an accomplice imo its possible he could have been dropped closer to Welles house.
Source: Google Maps
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-01-25 at 08.11.21.png
    Screenshot 2024-01-25 at 08.11.21.png
    491.7 KB · Views: 10
SA posted this photo of MT in an article posted above that I thought was possibly telling and is probably a good photo of what jury might be seeing as the testimony is presented.

Curious what people see in that photo? Interesting stuff imo...... MOO

I think the jury is seated to MT’s right. She has had her hair to her right side since all of this disturbing evidence is coming in. I think the jury is just seeing a swath of flat ironed hair as we see it on live stream.

It appears she is trying to hide behind her hair imo.
 
Last edited:

Exceptions with the permission of the judge or other judicial authority:
 A person may use a personal computer for note‐taking in a courtroom or hearing room.
 A person who is a participant in a hearing or trial may use a personal computer or other electronic device in a courtroom or hearing room.

Other electronic devices may be used in a courtroom or hearing room if permitted by the judge or other judicial authority or permitted by court rules.

Probably got an exception. Most likely something to do with "translation". IMO
 

Exceptions with the permission of the judge or other judicial authority:
 A person may use a personal computer for note‐taking in a courtroom or hearing room.
 A person who is a participant in a hearing or trial may use a personal computer or other electronic device in a courtroom or hearing room.

Other electronic devices may be used in a courtroom or hearing room if permitted by the judge or other judicial authority or permitted by court rules.

Probably got an exception. Most likely something to do with "translation". IMO
Thanks for this link:
Is MT considered a participant or does participant mean the attys only? Funny that it’s not clearer imo given it’s the Judiciary.
Wonder if Judge provided approval for both cell phone and computer….
Colour me confused though…

A person may use a cell phone:
To make phone calls, send and receive e‐mails and/or send and receive text messages only, but not in a courtroom, hearing room, lockup, chambers.
 
Thanks for this link:
Is MT considered a participant or does participant mean the attys only? Funny that it’s not clearer imo given it’s the Judiciary.

Colour me confused though…

A person may use a cell phone:
To make phone calls, send and receive e‐mails and/or send and receive text messages only, but not in a courtroom, hearing room, lockup, chambers.
I am assuming it means you can bring (and use) a cell phone in the courthouse, but not use it in the actual courtroom. That was my take on it anyway.
 
I am assuming it means you can bring (and use) a cell phone in the courthouse, but not into the actual courtroom. That was my take on it anyway.
Yes, that was way I read it as well.

Carve out though here for participants absent a definition, which here is not provided and my take on participants would be people actively working. To me this would mean attys and paralegals etc. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a defendant with a cell phone and certainly not seen a defendant texting during trial.

Until someone clarifies this with court to say it’s been approved by the judge I will continue to watch it (help on this would be appreciated from fellow watchers) and report daily using the cell phone image I posted yesterday. Doesn’t seem right to me. Will she be making and taking calls next?
 
I've been thinking about that, too. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion he doesn't know what he is doing, as some observers note.

He could tick off this jury with the constant objections, but maybe he has ready written this jury off, and he's playing the long game ---setting up the appeal.

I want conviction and justice. But Troconis is entitled to a vigorous defense. And JS may be delivering it very competently.

MOO
She is entitled to a vigorous defense-the best one her family can buy. And it’s the prosecutions responsibility to prove she is guilty-I hope they can do it.
 
Yes, that was way I read it as well.

Carve out though here for participants absent a definition, which here is not provided and my take on participants would be people actively working. To me this would mean attys and paralegals etc. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a defendant with a cell phone and certainly not seen a defendant texting during trial.

Until someone clarifies this with court to say it’s been approved by the judge I will continue to watch it (help on this would be appreciated from fellow watchers) and report daily using the cell phone image I posted yesterday. Doesn’t seem right to me. Will she be making and taking calls next?
I imagine she is texting someone
 
What I continually can't understand is how the man continued to snow people into believing in him? If he was willing to plot JFD's death, why would you think you were safe with him? Or, more so, why would you think your daughter was safe with him? Why would anyone post his bond and move into that house with him?

MT knew what he was capable of and helped by answering the phone, helping to clean up, and discarding things. Why not take the first chance to jump ship? He had clearly not succeeded in doing the murder and disappearance in a way that he would get away with it. Then, he brings evidence and, possibly, Jennifer back to their neck of the woods. I just don't understand her thinking.

She would have seemed redeemable if she turned on him. Maybe there is some payment she will get from his family or something. I don't get it.
I keep thinking that there is some benefit to her, to try and keep Dulos’s name out of it. I wonder if it’s more than just the fact that if Dulos wasn’t involved, then neither was she. Like, maybe Dulos’s sister also knows about MT’s role, and will tell what she knows, if MR desecrates his memory. Strangely, everyone on his side hs tried very hard to keep from blaming Dulos, when it’s obvious that he killed Jennifer. What is up with that?
 
I imagine she is texting someone
If anyone would have a bat phone straight to hell.... maybe she's texting FD.

It is beyond grating to hear about what a great person, great mother the defendant is.

I have a rule. If you participate in the murder of another mother, it doesn't matter what kind of mother you are. You lose the -other. You're nothing but a murderer. A gum-chewing, phone-texting, hair tent murderer.

JMO
 
In one of her police interviews she was told that FD was a liar. He lied to his first wife, he lied to Jennifer and he lies to you.
She appeared astounded when they told her he was texting Jennifer because he wanted to get back with her.
At that time she blurted out( against her attorneys admonition) that he told her JFD had a Borderline Personality Disorder. And she believed it.
MOO.
Can't help but wonder if she believes that today.
Yes, she and her family still believe it. They have a copy of Dr Herman’s psych report (IMO paid for by Dulos with Farber money)-and it probably says so in that report. The Troconis clan has been trying to reference that report, and use it in court. The reason I believe the report says JFD had a borderline personality, is because MT asked her lawyer (Bowman) in one of the interrogations if she can bring it up, and he emphatically said “NO!” She blurted out the claim of BPD anyway. Yes, she still believes it, and thinks it somehow exonerates her.
 
Last edited:
Is that unidentified item (circled in yellow in another picture here somewhere) an opened bag of chips, or prunes (dried plums), or the like? And the photo is looking into the opened end of the slightly crumpled bag?)

At first I thought it might have been a bag of ’chew’ or tobacco? MOO
I've been trying to make out the writing and all I can really get is the -END.
Screenshot 2024-01-25 092858.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
3,044
Total visitors
3,187

Forum statistics

Threads
604,157
Messages
18,168,399
Members
232,058
Latest member
queencity
Back
Top