GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #71

[Niner]

Tuesday, January 13th:
*Trial Proceeding [Habeas] continues (re Murder Charges/5th Amendment violation) (@ 10am ET) – CT – Jennifer Rebecca Farber Dulos (50) (Went missing on May 24, 2019, New Canaan; still missing) – *Michelle C. Troconis (44/now 51) (Dulos’ GF) arrested & charged (6/1/19) & arraigned (6/3/19) with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence & hindering prosecution. Plead not guilty. $500K bond. Posted bond (on 6/3/19). These charges were dismissed (8/28/20) & recharged below. Stamford Norwalk
*Charged (9/5/19) & arraigned (10/4/19) with tampering with evidence involving the borrowed car from work colleague [Count 5] & conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence [Count 4-dismissed] (for 5/29/19). Plead not guilty. $100K bond. Posted bond (on 9/5/19). Off GPS 4/6/23. Stamford Norwalk
*Charged (1/7/20) with conspiracy to commit murder (for 5/24/19) [Count 1]. Plead not guilty. $2M bond. Bond reduced (1/8/20) to $1.5M & bonded out (on 1/9/20). Off GPS 4/6/23. Stamford-Norwalk
*Charged (8/28/20) with 2nd degree hindering prosecution [Count 6], tampering with physical evidence [Count 3[ & conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence [Count 2] (for 5/2 4/19). Plead not guilty. $500K bond. Posted bond. Off GPS 4/6/23.
After being found guilty - Bond changed (3/1/24) to $6M Cash/Surety Bond; house arrest. GPS monitoring. Passports surrendered. Appeal bond denied (5/31/24).
The declaration of death for Jennifer was officially issued by Judge William P. Osterndorf on October 24, 2023.
Trial began on 1/11/24. State rested their case on 2/21/24. Defense started their case on 2/21/24 & ended on 2/23/24. Closing arguments set for 2/27/24. Total deliberations: ~12 hours. Verdict: Guilty of all charges. Sentenced on 5/31/24 to 14.5 years in prison.
Remanded to jail with bond change to $6M Cash/Surety. Inmate #433612.
Superior Court Judge Kevin Randolph presiding for trial. Assistant State’s attorney Sean McGuinness & Supervisory assistant State’s attorney Michelle Manning & defense attorneys Jon Schoenhorn & Audrey Felson.
Appeal filed 7/17/24 (A.C. #47734). Appeal attorney Pamela Ngy assigned [12/18/24]. Habeas Corpus Petition filed [9/14/24] by attorney Michael W. Brown. 3/24/25: Appeal-Order on Motion for Review AC243465. Review is granted but the relief requested is denied.
Habeas Trial Judge Carl Schuman [Rockville Superior Court]. Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Russell C. Zentner & Appeal attorney Pamela Ngy. Defense attorney Michael Brown.
Bond & Court info from 6/3/19 thru 1/10/24 & Trial Days 1-32 (1/11-3/1/24) & Verdict Watch Day 1-3 (2/28 & 3/1/24) & thru 1/5/26 reference post #1397 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-canaan-24-may-2019-arrests-71.718361/page-70
1/9/26 Friday, Trial Day 2: *Defense witnesses: Attorney Andrew Bowman [has denied these ineffective counsel claims & maintained that his counsel was never a problem. Also stated Troconis refused an interpreter 3 times] back on stand for re-cross. Former State’s Attorney Richard J. Colangelo, Jr. Attorney Michael Fitzpatrick [a criminal defense atty. 33 criminal trials, including 16 murder cases. Purdue undergraduate & University of Bridgeport/Quinnipiac Law School. Being questioned about proffer agreements, cooperation agreements etc. He is a paid expert witness retained by Schoenhorn]. Habeas petition proceedings continued on Tuesday, 1/13/26 with cross for Fitzpatrick.
*Recap of Bowman testimony in Habeas Trial: https://archive.ph/2026.01.10-18355...onis-habeas-trial-jennifer-dulos-21279054.php
*Recap of Fitzgerald testimony in Habeas Trial: https://archive.ph/2026.01.10-18434...lle-troconis-habeas-trial-dulos-live-21284077.php

 

[Weki]

Here's why IMO

He believed her.

He believed Colangelo.

He believed that it was in MT's best interest to roll on FD.

It seemed to be working, though it was like pulling teeth.

He was genuinely mystified for why she was sinking herself to protect him and I think he wanted to know how to break that open. Was she not understanding, why was she protecting him, knowing she's be arrested. Plus the expectation was that JFd would be found and that might cancel out MT best-interest bet to cooperate.

Then remember, MT tells them about the place where they've biked, suggesting it's where JFd is.

I think AB believed Colangelo was good for his word, when MT handed them FD, they'd cut her a deal. Gentleman's agreement.

Despite what last week's lawyer said, I bet defense attorneys and DAs do that dance all the time. We have something that could help our client. DA wants to know the quality/nature of it before they make any promises.

What AB missed is how enmeshed MT was. She was the driver. The impetus. And she was not clever enough AND COULD NOT give LE enough to get FD while working around her part. Couldn't because FD would have rolled on her. FD didn't use MT. MT used FD to do her dirty work.

But so much if this is known only from hindsight. Had AB gotten a KrystalKenny deal for AB, he'd be recognized for brokering her a sweet deal. Low time, no time. And she would have come away looking like FD threatened her and she was fearful. Or something.

It remains a fact that we don't know what all MT did. "I wasn't cleaning Jennifer." Oh? Are you sure? Two ponchos suggest otherwise....

By Interviews 2 and 3, MT was starting to make concessions. Maybe she didn't SEE FD that morning. And then that search... that looks quite cooperative. Except it wasn't.

Should be have advised her to say nothing at all? And let her get arrested and charged? Or was it his obligation, IF SHE WAS GOING TO TELL THE TRUTH to tell LE what she knows. Before that door closed.

It was a calculated strategy. In good faith.

JMO

IANAL but he could’ve let her get arrested and charged and at that point whatever proffer she gives would not have been used against her at trial. It would’ve been plea negotiations. She could’ve lied till the cows came home and it would’ve stayed out of the courtroom.

Bowman has no obligation to help the state find Jennifer Dulos’s body. He knows the state is putting pressure on him and his client. He didn’t attempt to inoculate his client from this pressure.

Of course the state is not going to give MT immunity without hearing what she has to say. But the forensic expert made the point that the lawyer can give the proffer on her behalf and Bowman didn’t need to give access to his client. Bowman should’ve pressed the DA for information on his client. What did they know? Etc.

I have no doubt Bowman was acting in good faith. The question this hearing is trying to answer is - did he fail to protect MT? I think it’s murky.

JMO

 

[pernickety]

I'm just thinking out loud here but I thought the forensic expert made some good points. He pointed out that MT's first interview was a disaster and it was clear that LE did not believe her. We know this because LE stated so. At that point, shouldn't there be a red flag going off in Bowman's head that his client is a liar (and that she has criminal liablity cause why else would she lie) and that he should put a stop to these interviews. Bowman said himself that he went back for the 2nd and 3rd interviews to clean up the mess from the previous interviews. He was hoping to put the tooth paste back in the tube. Why is Bowman so surprised that his client is a lying liar? He's an experienced defense attorney, which means most of his clients are liars. Surely, this is not the first time a client has said to him 'I have nothing to do with this I'm innocent' only for him to find out later that he was lied to.

Bowman did not say that MT INSISTED that she continue the interviews. My sense was that he was fully on board with interviews #2 and #3.

Was Bowman being an old school gentleman and couldn't fathom the innocent acting "lady" was conniving to help Fotis? I'm sure she put on a good show for him - she can't help herself.

Even if the judge finds Bowman should not have led his client to the slaughter house the 2nd and 3rd times, I still don't see how this overturns the conviction. The defendant lied to her attorney. How can she come to court now and say I lied to my own lawyer, which led him to allow me to be interviewed but he should've known better anyway??? This is crazy town if the conviction gets overturned over this.

JMO

Are you referring to Fitzpatrick? He's not a "forensic" expert. In this case he's a standard-of-care expert.

 

[Megnut]

IANAL but he could’ve let her get arrested and charged and at that point whatever proffer she gives would not have been used against her at trial. It would’ve been plea negotiations. She could’ve lied till the cows came home and it would’ve stayed out of the courtroom.

Bowman has no obligation to help the state find Jennifer Dulos’s body. He knows the state is putting pressure on him and his client. He didn’t attempt to inoculate his client from this pressure.

Of course the state is not going to give MT immunity without hearing what she has to say. But the forensic expert made the point that the lawyer can give the proffer on her behalf and Bowman didn’t need to give access to his client. Bowman should’ve pressed the DA for information on his client. What did they know? Etc.

I have no doubt Bowman was acting in good faith. The question this hearing is trying to answer is - did he fail to protect MT? I think it’s murky.

JMO

I just think that any retrospect is open to woulda/coulda/shoulda.

The pressure wasn't to find the remains but for MT to assist the State to save herself before that window closed.

Presumably her Defense failed to get the interviews suppressed for trial.

I don't see how this hearing changes that matrix.

Lawyers choose strategies every day.

Defendants make choices too.

I don't think she's getting a new trial nor do I think a new strategy would be successful.

JMO

 

[Cloudydiamond]

Tuesday, January 13th:
*Trial Proceeding [Habeas] continues (re Murder Charges/5th Amendment violation) (@ 10am ET) – CT – Jennifer Rebecca Farber Dulos (50) (Went missing on May 24, 2019, New Canaan; still missing) – *Michelle C. Troconis (44/now 51) (Dulos’ GF) arrested & charged (6/1/19) & arraigned (6/3/19) with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence & hindering prosecution. Plead not guilty. $500K bond. Posted bond (on 6/3/19). These charges were dismissed (8/28/20) & recharged below. Stamford Norwalk
*Charged (9/5/19) & arraigned (10/4/19) with tampering with evidence involving the borrowed car from work colleague [Count 5] & conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence [Count 4-dismissed] (for 5/29/19). Plead not guilty. $100K bond. Posted bond (on 9/5/19). Off GPS 4/6/23. Stamford Norwalk
*Charged (1/7/20) with conspiracy to commit murder (for 5/24/19) [Count 1]. Plead not guilty. $2M bond. Bond reduced (1/8/20) to $1.5M & bonded out (on 1/9/20). Off GPS 4/6/23. Stamford-Norwalk
*Charged (8/28/20) with 2nd degree hindering prosecution [Count 6], tampering with physical evidence [Count 3[ & conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence [Count 2] (for 5/2 4/19). Plead not guilty. $500K bond. Posted bond. Off GPS 4/6/23.
After being found guilty - Bond changed (3/1/24) to $6M Cash/Surety Bond; house arrest. GPS monitoring. Passports surrendered. Appeal bond denied (5/31/24).
The declaration of death for Jennifer was officially issued by Judge William P. Osterndorf on October 24, 2023.
Trial began on 1/11/24. State rested their case on 2/21/24. Defense started their case on 2/21/24 & ended on 2/23/24. Closing arguments set for 2/27/24. Total deliberations: ~12 hours. Verdict: Guilty of all charges. Sentenced on 5/31/24 to 14.5 years in prison.
Remanded to jail with bond change to $6M Cash/Surety. Inmate #433612.
Superior Court Judge Kevin Randolph presiding for trial. Assistant State’s attorney Sean McGuinness & Supervisory assistant State’s attorney Michelle Manning & defense attorneys Jon Schoenhorn & Audrey Felson.
Appeal filed 7/17/24 (A.C. #47734). Appeal attorney Pamela Ngy assigned [12/18/24]. Habeas Corpus Petition filed [9/14/24] by attorney Michael W. Brown. 3/24/25: Appeal-Order on Motion for Review AC243465. Review is granted but the relief requested is denied.
Habeas Trial Judge Carl Schuman [Rockville Superior Court]. Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Russell C. Zentner & Appeal attorney Pamela Ngy. Defense attorney Michael Brown.
Bond & Court info from 6/3/19 thru 1/10/24 & Trial Days 1-32 (1/11-3/1/24) & Verdict Watch Day 1-3 (2/28 & 3/1/24) & thru 1/5/26 reference post #1397 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-canaan-24-may-2019-arrests-71.718361/page-70
1/9/26 Friday, Trial Day 2: *Defense witnesses: Attorney Andrew Bowman [has denied these ineffective counsel claims & maintained that his counsel was never a problem. Also stated Troconis refused an interpreter 3 times] back on stand for re-cross. Former State’s Attorney Richard J. Colangelo, Jr. Attorney Michael Fitzpatrick [a criminal defense atty. 33 criminal trials, including 16 murder cases. Purdue undergraduate & University of Bridgeport/Quinnipiac Law School. Being questioned about proffer agreements, cooperation agreements etc. He is a paid expert witness retained by Schoenhorn]. Habeas petition proceedings continued on Tuesday, 1/13/26 with cross for Fitzpatrick.
*Recap of Bowman testimony in Habeas Trial: https://archive.ph/2026.01.10-18355...onis-habeas-trial-jennifer-dulos-21279054.php
*Recap of Fitzgerald testimony in Habeas Trial: https://archive.ph/2026.01.10-18434...lle-troconis-habeas-trial-dulos-live-21284077.php

So, I thought this was Friday. I can't find it being streamed anywhere?

 

[Seattle1]

So - Tuesday the 13th is next & NOT 1/16? I tried accessing the articles that were posted but could not get into any of them - I have ad blocker - so did not want to turn that off...

TIA !

My understanding is that Tuesday, 1/13, was added for the convenience of the court and the parties after the late start on Friday (due to delayed transportation of the inmate). It does not replace Court on 1/16-- but in addition to.

ETA - confirming both dates from the updated docket:

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=TSRCV245001865S#Schedule

Scheduled Court Dates as of 01/12/2026


TSR-CV24-5001865-S - TROCONIS, MICHELLE #433612 v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION


​

#

Date
Time
Event Description
Status

1
01/13/2026
10:00AM
Trial
Proceeding

2
01/16/2026
10:00AM

Trial
Proceeding

​

 

[Seattle1]

Are you referring to Fitzpatrick? He's not a "forensic" expert. In this case he's a standard-of-care expert.

EXPERT DISCLOSURE FOR MICHAEL FITZPATRICK

Link to 9-page expert witness disclosure filed by petitioner on 12/26/25:

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31646792

 

[BJarv]

IDK if this is the link that will have the hearing but they are the only network that is streaming the trial according to what the Court Clerks office told me last week. Classic mismanagement of simple sharing of information by the State of CT. Will keep searching for another feed as it might be streaming on the app only and not youtube.

Nope. Link I previously posted isn't working. Will call the Court and see what is going on.

https://www.wtnh.com/dulos/michelle-troconis-habeas-trial-in-jennifer-farber-dulos-case-enters-3rd-day/

 

[BJarv]

I called WTNH and they said that Court is not in session yet and they are expecting a delay. They don't know how long the delay will be but they suggested to use the website link for the Troconis story for the live hearing as that is where the link will go live. They didn't know about youtube link but last week that is where I was watching it.

Website link:

https://www.wtnh.com/dulos/michelle-troconis-habeas-trial-in-jennifer-farber-dulos-case-enters-3rd-day/

 

[Megnut]

Maybe the inmate is struggling in her selection of which shade of beige to wear today.

 

[BJarv]

Maybe the inmate is struggling in her selection of which shade of beige to wear today.

Fingers crossed they all get it together. Wild that simple trial cannot begin on time. Gotta love Corrupticut time.

 

[Megnut]

I still don't follow the logic here. Had MT not interviewed at all, they still would have arrested her. They'd still have had good circumstantial evidence. A jury may have found her guilty. This isn't a 'Choose your Adventure" where you get to switch up the variables and try for better outcomes.

Had she been found guilty under those circumstances, the next appeal would have faulted her counsel for not attempting to secure her a sweetheart deal.

Hindsight affords all of us clarity but it's wrong to them put that toothpaste back in the tube so it can come out different.

I think the judge will find for that. Second guessing while inevitable isn't grounds for a do-over.

JMO

 

[Jmoose]

I still don't follow the logic here. Had MT not interviewed at all, they still would have arrested her. They'd still have had good circumstantial evidence. A jury may have found her guilty. This isn't a 'Choose your Adventure" where you get to switch up the variables and try for better outcomes.

Had she been found guilty under those circumstances, the next appeal would have faulted her counsel for not attempting to secure her a sweetheart deal.

Hindsight affords all of us clarity but it's wrong to them put that toothpaste back in the tube so it can come out different.

I think the judge will find for that. Second guessing while inevitable isn't grounds for a do-over.

JMO

I think you’re right. She wrote her “timeline” or “alibi script” in her own handwriting (and in English!), stating that she and Fotis were together all morning at 4JC. The cops discovered that he wasn’t there, and at that point, they knew she’d lied. They didn’t need to depend at all on the 3 interviews. They already had her lying to them-this is why they didn’t trust her word, and subsequently, did not offer an immunity deal to her. Besides, she wasn’t ready for one, or even seeking one, until Fotis died. In fact, she and her family are still maintaining that Jennifer is alive and well somewhere, so why would she even need one?

 

[pernickety]

EXPERT DISCLOSURE FOR MICHAEL FITZPATRICK

Link to 9-page expert witness disclosure filed by petitioner on 12/26/25:

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31646792

This says he would testify about several issues re the standard of care for a client who is "in custody" or with "pending charges" when speaking to law enforcement. But at the times MT spoke with LE she wasn't in custody and had no pending charges--IIRC.

 

[Seattle1]

Fingers crossed they all get it together. Wild that simple trial cannot begin on time. Gotta love Corrupticut time.

I gave up trying to watch this proceeding live and waited for YT Court CHOPT to piece the full day together. Day 2 (Friday) is now available in the Media Only thread.

 

[Mysticeilis]

I called WTNH and they said that Court is not in session yet and they are expecting a delay. They don't know how long the delay will be but they suggested to use the website link for the Troconis story for the live hearing as that is where the link will go live. They didn't know about youtube link but last week that is where I was watching it.

Website link:

https://www.wtnh.com/dulos/michelle-troconis-habeas-trial-in-jennifer-farber-dulos-case-enters-3rd-day/

WFSB is also going to live stream it but it has not started yet. I don’t know what the delay is.

 

[Weki]

Whether it was wise for Bowman to allow his client to be interviewed 3 times is not something that we are seeing with the benefit of hindsight imo. It was arguably unwise in the moment. Even if you say he thought she was telling the truth. OK. After the 1st interview, clearly, she wasn't. Why did he let her go back 2 more times? I think it's a fair question and I don't think it's the benefit of hindsight.

As for the pressure to find Jennifer Dulos' body. Of course there was pressure. The state attorney said so on the stand.

JMO

 

[BJarv]

I gave up trying to watch this proceeding live and waited for YT Court CHOPT to piece the full day together. Day 2 (Friday) is now available in the Media Only thread.

Thanks!

 

[Megnut]

Whether it was wise for Bowman to allow his client to be interviewed 3 times is not something that we are seeing with the benefit of hindsight imo. It was arguably unwise in the moment. Even if you say he thought she was telling the truth. OK. After the 1st interview, clearly, she wasn't. Why did he let her go back 2 more times? I think it's a fair question and I don't think it's the benefit of hindsight.

As for the pressure to find Jennifer Dulos' body. Of course there was pressure. The state attorney said so on the stand.

JMO

Yes, there pressure was in finding the body. Point being, NOW was her opportunity to cooperate. She would lose that opportunity.

Clearly AB was working (he thought WITH his vlient) to broker her a sweetheart deal. Little to no sentence if they could lock down on FD.

That is not bad lawyering. It's a strategy.

Interviews 2 and 3 did not happen in vacuums. She had admitted there was no shower, she hadn't in fact seen FD that morning. She was killing his alibi, this is the beginning of cooperation. That is why he continued with the interviews, including the field trip to search for remains.

In hindsight, should he have left her to face full charges? Without trying to mitigate them at all?

JMO

 

[Jmoose]

Yes, there pressure was in finding the body. Point being, NOW was her opportunity to cooperate. She would lose that opportunity.

Clearly AB was working (he thought WITH his vlient) to broker her a sweetheart deal. Little to no sentence if they could lock down on FD.

That is not bad lawyering. It's a strategy.

Interviews 2 and 3 did not happen in vacuums. She had admitted there was no shower, she hadn't in fact seen FD that morning. She was killing his alibi, this is the beginning of cooperation. That is why he continued with the interviews, including the field trip to search for remains.

In hindsight, should he have left her to face full charges? Without trying to mitigate them at all?

JMO

Yes, there pressure was in finding the body. Point being, NOW was her opportunity to cooperate. She would lose that opportunity.

Clearly AB was working (he thought WITH his vlient) to broker her a sweetheart deal. Little to no sentence if they could lock down on FD.

That is not bad lawyering. It's a strategy.

Interviews 2 and 3 did not happen in vacuums. She had admitted there was no shower, she hadn't in fact seen FD that morning. She was killing his alibi, this is the beginning of cooperation. That is why he continued with the interviews, including the field trip to search for remains.

In hindsight, should he have left her to face full charges? Without trying to mitigate them at all?

JMO

Right-everything is crystal clear in hindsight; this could easily have all worked out in her favor the way Bowman was arranging it, but who knew Dulos was going to kill himself? There is some speculation that Dulos was merely stalling for time, and didn’t actually mean to die, but I believe he knew they’d figured it out, and he’d be going to prison for life, and dipped out, leaving MT holding the proverbial bag. Funny-Jennifer gets blamed, Bowman gets blamed, the police get blamed, but MT doesn’t blame Dulos or her own self for the mess she is in now.