Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #60
- Thread starter doodles1211
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
New Posts
-
CA - Court upholds Menendez brothers' convictions
- Latest: I am not Sherlock H.
- Status
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 12,468
- Reaction score
- 215,462
State recalls Sgt Beauttin (sp?)
Witness seized the license plates from the drain, headed over 4J. Search and seizure warrants.
Witness describes walking onto property, knocked on door, no answer.
Another officer attempted several times to reach FD. Appeared no one home.
Noticed a white Jeep traveling slowly toward 4J on Jefferson Crossing. He was familiar with that vehicle, owned by Fore Group. Driver, white make with a crew style haircut. Believed it to be FD. Didn't stop, kept driving. Turned around (Hefferson ends in a cul de sac) and was coming back toward 4 J again.
He signaled for the operator to pull over. He stopped in the street. Was it FD? No. Identified a PG, employee of Fore.
I asked PG where he was coming from. Said he was coming from New Canaan. He was very nervous, carotid artery was pulsing. Asked him to step out of the vehicle, to search the vehicle.
Shirt soaked in sweat. Seemed suspicious that it was so sweaty after an hour in a car with AC. Then he added that he had stopped at 585 Deeecliff to remove seats from a Porsche.
Then he revoked consent to search because he felt it was not his to give consent because it was a Fore vehicle.
Peered in. Saw lots of paper towels. Seats. Power tools.
Seized nothing.
Witness seized the license plates from the drain, headed over 4J. Search and seizure warrants.
Witness describes walking onto property, knocked on door, no answer.
Another officer attempted several times to reach FD. Appeared no one home.
Noticed a white Jeep traveling slowly toward 4J on Jefferson Crossing. He was familiar with that vehicle, owned by Fore Group. Driver, white make with a crew style haircut. Believed it to be FD. Didn't stop, kept driving. Turned around (Hefferson ends in a cul de sac) and was coming back toward 4 J again.
He signaled for the operator to pull over. He stopped in the street. Was it FD? No. Identified a PG, employee of Fore.
I asked PG where he was coming from. Said he was coming from New Canaan. He was very nervous, carotid artery was pulsing. Asked him to step out of the vehicle, to search the vehicle.
Shirt soaked in sweat. Seemed suspicious that it was so sweaty after an hour in a car with AC. Then he added that he had stopped at 585 Deeecliff to remove seats from a Porsche.
Then he revoked consent to search because he felt it was not his to give consent because it was a Fore vehicle.
Peered in. Saw lots of paper towels. Seats. Power tools.
Seized nothing.
Last edited:
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 12,468
- Reaction score
- 215,462
PG called FD.
FD arrived in the Suburban. The defendant, her mother and her child arrived.
Communicated to them that they would not be allowed in. Anticipated a lengthy search.
Sgt Bissen allowed them each to go in under supervision to pack overnight bags.
Were instructed to bring FD and MT to Troop L, Litchfield.
Was PG still there? Yes.
PG took the defendant's mother and daughter to a hotel.
Then he himself went to Troop L. To enter the plates into evidence. Saw FD and the defendant in a conference room with other detectives.
He saw defendant bent over, rocking.
Later he saw her give FD a stern look, shaking her head no.
Objection, overruled.
FD made an even sterner look back at her.
Decision to seize FD 's second phone. FD had represented to LA that it was a new phone as if the 25th but they knew this was not true.
FD handed hin the phone, gave him the pass code. FD asked for his phone back but was told it was being seized.
FD arrived in the Suburban. The defendant, her mother and her child arrived.
Communicated to them that they would not be allowed in. Anticipated a lengthy search.
Sgt Bissen allowed them each to go in under supervision to pack overnight bags.
Were instructed to bring FD and MT to Troop L, Litchfield.
Was PG still there? Yes.
PG took the defendant's mother and daughter to a hotel.
Then he himself went to Troop L. To enter the plates into evidence. Saw FD and the defendant in a conference room with other detectives.
He saw defendant bent over, rocking.
Later he saw her give FD a stern look, shaking her head no.
Objection, overruled.
FD made an even sterner look back at her.
Decision to seize FD 's second phone. FD had represented to LA that it was a new phone as if the 25th but they knew this was not true.
FD handed hin the phone, gave him the pass code. FD asked for his phone back but was told it was being seized.
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 12,468
- Reaction score
- 215,462
Witness helped FD get his lawyer's number from his phone. Then FD and the defendant left, without escort.
Witness went to Simberry to interview PG. Did you seize his phone? Did he consent? Yes after consulting his attorney.
Left his residence but returned to seize the Cherokee because it had been at 80MS on the 24th.
Had it towed.
Witness offered his work laptop -- said if he were going to look things up, he'd use a computer not registered to himself-- gave it to LE.
Witness went to Simberry to interview PG. Did you seize his phone? Did he consent? Yes after consulting his attorney.
Left his residence but returned to seize the Cherokee because it had been at 80MS on the 24th.
Had it towed.
Witness offered his work laptop -- said if he were going to look things up, he'd use a computer not registered to himself-- gave it to LE.
afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
Sorry but a bit behind. Just wanted to put this idea out there for future comment as I am listening to JS from earlier (no jury) and feel like I'm on Mars!
JS is spouting to the Judge that he would like to present 'as fact' that FD was 'winning' Dulos v Dulos case and that is a cornerstone of sorts in their case to eliminate the issue of possible motive. It seems that to prove this ridiculous statement that he would like to use the discredited Herman Report that isn't even part of the Family Court file as it was tossed out and the entire record sealed. The report iirc wasn't even completed and Dr Herman would not cooperate with the Family Court at that time.
Worse yet he is claiming that references to the report aren't hearsay. Not seeing this as MT alleged to never have seen the report and relied on FD 'interpretation' of the report whose interpretation most likely was simply to pacify MT and continue his con that 'all will be well' to no doubt stop also the ongoing jabs from MT about the ongoing divorce which was sinking them closer to bankruptcy every day it continued. Its unclear whether TP has seen the report but my guess given his imo overall level of integrity would mean that perhaps he has. I am just baffled how any unsubstantiated commentary of any sort about a deceased individual (or alive for that matter if JF were alive) regarding health matters or mental health could be raised in court ever. Will the defence try to 'DIG UP' Dr Herman in person and put him on the stand?
IDK, scratching my head about all this.
JS is calling for a mistrial based on this matter.
MOO
JS is spouting to the Judge that he would like to present 'as fact' that FD was 'winning' Dulos v Dulos case and that is a cornerstone of sorts in their case to eliminate the issue of possible motive. It seems that to prove this ridiculous statement that he would like to use the discredited Herman Report that isn't even part of the Family Court file as it was tossed out and the entire record sealed. The report iirc wasn't even completed and Dr Herman would not cooperate with the Family Court at that time.
Worse yet he is claiming that references to the report aren't hearsay. Not seeing this as MT alleged to never have seen the report and relied on FD 'interpretation' of the report whose interpretation most likely was simply to pacify MT and continue his con that 'all will be well' to no doubt stop also the ongoing jabs from MT about the ongoing divorce which was sinking them closer to bankruptcy every day it continued. Its unclear whether TP has seen the report but my guess given his imo overall level of integrity would mean that perhaps he has. I am just baffled how any unsubstantiated commentary of any sort about a deceased individual (or alive for that matter if JF were alive) regarding health matters or mental health could be raised in court ever. Will the defence try to 'DIG UP' Dr Herman in person and put him on the stand?
IDK, scratching my head about all this.
JS is calling for a mistrial based on this matter.
MOO
Last edited:
Alkali13
Nerd
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2019
- Messages
- 2,818
- Reaction score
- 26,180
I literally made timelines based on those search warrants and the detailed cell phone pings, and I can't even find THAT now. I keep waiting to see if things I remember that aren't in the AAs come up so that I know I am not misremembering.
I am not Sherlock H.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2023
- Messages
- 2,012
- Reaction score
- 18,088
Maybe FD not only cut his hair in attempt not to shed DNA during commission of any crimes, but perhaps in attempt to present himself as PG? MOO (Apologies too if this has already been suggested. Just so much evidence and documentation.)
Most likely FD told numerous people that he was 'winning' in family court and was eager to be granted sole custody. Lies to aid in his eventual defense.
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 12,468
- Reaction score
- 215,462
State is asking now about 80 MS.
Reviewed footage from 77 MS.
Confirmed footage was fast by 24 hours and 10 minutes. Did not download it that day, another officer did later.
Witness describes 2001 red Tacoma, owned by PG.
State
JS, voir dire. JS asks if he watched hours. Witness says it was motion activated. Witness testifies to long videos. Doesn't disagree with JS's representation that the video records for 45 minutes after activation. Witness broke up video to share the load with another officer.
Judge admonishes JS that he'd going beyond void dire.
JS asks if the video today is clips of what he saw. Witness says it was long stretches of video he watched on fast forward.
Witness saw a red pick up at 5:35 am on Msy 24th pull out of 80 MS and turn left. Video.
MS connects to Route 4 and others.
Morning recess into 11:50.
Reviewed footage from 77 MS.
Confirmed footage was fast by 24 hours and 10 minutes. Did not download it that day, another officer did later.
Witness describes 2001 red Tacoma, owned by PG.
State
JS, voir dire. JS asks if he watched hours. Witness says it was motion activated. Witness testifies to long videos. Doesn't disagree with JS's representation that the video records for 45 minutes after activation. Witness broke up video to share the load with another officer.
Judge admonishes JS that he'd going beyond void dire.
JS asks if the video today is clips of what he saw. Witness says it was long stretches of video he watched on fast forward.
Witness saw a red pick up at 5:35 am on Msy 24th pull out of 80 MS and turn left. Video.
MS connects to Route 4 and others.
Morning recess into 11:50.
stevemcmanus87
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2024
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 481
Loved that!
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 12,468
- Reaction score
- 215,462
BINGO!
It just hit me. He did not shave his head to frame PG for the crime. He was impersonating him to fool the camera!!! The Tacoma itself needed an alibi... so FD created a storyline! PG, leaving 80 MS in his Tacoma, nothing to see here. The Tacoma in New Canaan, nothing to see here. PG was working in New Canaan. IMO FD was trying to plug anticipated holes!!
I never thought FD was trying to frame PG for the crime. Makes no sense (to me). If he wanted PG to take the fall, leave the bloody seats right there! Nope, IMO FD simply used PG's truck and PG's likeness to get himself to New Canaan incognito!
JMO
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 12,468
- Reaction score
- 215,462
MOO
my personal theory-- FD shaved his head and wore PG's hoodie and drove his truck in order to bypass the neighbor's security camera. Nothing to see here, just a contractor contracting between properties. And was wearing the defendant's shoes and clothing, plus a ball cap so he could trick the cameras near Welles. Nothing to see here, just "Jennifer" driving her Suburban. Potentially just "Jennifer" in and around her driveway.
Oh, how I wish FD could be here to see his clever handiwork exposed on the big screen!
MOO
my personal theory-- FD shaved his head and wore PG's hoodie and drove his truck in order to bypass the neighbor's security camera. Nothing to see here, just a contractor contracting between properties. And was wearing the defendant's shoes and clothing, plus a ball cap so he could trick the cameras near Welles. Nothing to see here, just "Jennifer" driving her Suburban. Potentially just "Jennifer" in and around her driveway.
Oh, how I wish FD could be here to see his clever handiwork exposed on the big screen!
MOO
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 87,727
- Reaction score
- 296,060
Day 13 - article I will use for my reference in my notes. 
nodamselindistress
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,454
- Reaction score
- 26,432
Dispute in the Gallery?
- Status