Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #60

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Next item

Four plastic bags

88-1 two bags attached by black tape, one torn. Inside a sponge, black tape, an unused black bag

[Disturbing photo of the bag. That looks like a body bag.]

Removed the tape.

Writing on the underside of the tape. Tour de France.
 
Item

Green and yellow sponge

JS asks for a moment with State counsel.

Defendant is quite attentive.

No objection.

Next item

Unused black item

JS wants to inquire.

You gave a number to every item? Yes
Asks if the sponge was processed. No. Surface not suitable for developing.
Did you develop the unused bag? Yes but developed no prints. Witness observed red brown stains.

Sponge and bag were sent to the State Biological Lab
 
Regarding the Tour de France tape

Developed two prints

One insufficient for comparison, one sufficient

Compared it to FD. Photo of that comparison.

Because of the quality of the impression, it was inconclusive.
 
Item

Torn piece of paper

JS asks if any impressions were developed. No. JS asks if it was processed by someone else. Witness says yes, it went on to the biological lab


JS objects, thinks this is the wrong witness. Judge overrules

No impressions developed from the torm piece of paper

Item

Plastic bag

Super glued it

Developed an area, friction rich detail, fluoresced. Sufficient for comparison. Compared to FD.

Side by side, impression from bag next to index finger of FD

Conclusion: identified as right index finger of FD
 
Tour de France tape......im confused - is/was that bike handle bar tape or something? Or just happens to be called Tour de France tape?
I’m confused about it too.

That Tour de France “tape”….never heard of this, has anyone?

First thing that came to mind though was Fotis and his beloved Mercier French racing bike.

That’s like leaving his calling card imo
 
Item

Torn piece of paper

JS asks if any impressions were developed. No. JS asks if it was processed by someone else. Witness says yes, it went on to the biological lab


JS objects, thinks this is the wrong witness. Judge overrules

No impressions developed from the torm piece of paper

Item

Plastic bag

Super glued it

Developed an area, friction rich detail, fluoresced. Sufficient for comparison. Compared to FD.

Side by side, impression from bag next to index finger of FD

Conclusion: identified as right index finger of FD
Was that a black plastic bag pulled from the trash in Albany?
 
Item

One black trash bag, torn and tied in knot

Inside bag was piece of cardboard, taoe attached to the bag. On the outside, a piece of paper

Item

Piece of cardboard

JS voir dire -- no fingerprints developed, it was sent to the biology lab after you? Yes. No objection

Item

Piece of paper

Subsequently sent to the biological lab.
Wasn't suitable for developing prints. It was wet and moldy, per the witness. No objection

Item

Black tape

Attached to inside of bag. Submerged in liquid nitrogen, separated into ten pieces

No impressions were developed from the black bag nor the cardboard

Processed the adhesive tape. Developed five areas with impressions.

Four impressions were sufficient for comparison

Compared to FD

Latent print #2 -- right middle finger of FD. Inconclusive result.

Latent print #3 -- identified as right middle finger of FD

Latent print #4 -- identified as left middle finger of FD

Latent print #5 -- identified inconclusive to the left middle finger of FD
 
Remember the claims that someone had left all the black bags full of evidence in the yard of FD? (And FD's mention in his suicide note that NP would explain it all?)

No way with FD's fingerprints all over the adhesive side of that tape found adhered to the black bags (and carefully removed by the forensics lab).
 
I just want to clarify, as this witness is so precise, where I've indicated an identification to FD, he actually identifies it to the card -- so it's a match to the print labeled FD. I suppose he says it that way because he himself was not there when the prints are taken. So he's matching to the card.

So, so long as we believe those are FD's prints on the card in question, FD touched that tape.
 
Item

Torn piece of paper

JS asks if any impressions were developed. No. JS asks if it was processed by someone else. Witness says yes, it went on to the biological lab


JS objects, thinks this is the wrong witness. Judge overrules

No impressions developed from the torm piece of paper

Item

Plastic bag

Super glued it

Developed an area, friction rich detail, fluoresced. Sufficient for comparison. Compared to FD.

Side by side, impression from bag next to index finger of FD

Conclusion: identified as right index finger of FD
That tiny torn piece of paper said BAL DUE in a box. Means nothing probably but made me reflect on all of FD's creditors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
2,679
Total visitors
2,793

Forum statistics

Threads
603,877
Messages
18,164,736
Members
231,881
Latest member
lockett
Back
Top