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

[sds71]

https://nbcconnecticut.app.link/840niYpOTZb

 

[Mysticeilis]

Trial is streaming live now

 

[Weki]

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

OK, so we agree there was pressure being applied by the state on Bowman/MT. The expert said that state attorneys always apply pressure to get you to act when it's not prudent/in your client's best interest. Bowman's job was to not fall for that. He did. That's my point. He didn't know Fotis was gonna commit suicide. So MT's cooperation was going to be in play for Fotis' prosecution until Fotis went to trial. What opportunity was he going to lose if he had waited and declined the interviews or made a proffer himself on behalf of MT?

Lets say he declined to make his client available for interviews. The state arrests her. She's charged as an accessory. (Lets remember no one knows Fotis is going to commit suicide at this point.) Bowman can still make a deal for MT because the state wants Fotis!

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

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.

MT was in custody and/or released on pretrial bail release when the police interviews were conducted.

On 06/01/19 arrest warrants for Dulos and Troconis were authorized and executed
charging both individuals with Tampering with/or Fabricating Physical Evidence (Sec. 53a-155(a)(1) C.G.S.) and for Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree (Sec. 53a-165aa(a) C.G.S.).

On 06/02/19 detectives conducted the first interview with Troconis at NCPD headquarters following her initial arrest on the above charges. Troconis' attorney, Andrew Bowman, was present in the room during all questioning. During this initial interview, Troconis offered her first version of the events of the date of Jennifer's disappearance (Friday 05/24/19) as well as the circumstances leading up to that day.

Interview #2 (Date: 06/06/19)
Interview #3 (Date: 08/13/19)

01/06/20 -2nd Arrest: That based upon the above facts and circumstances, Affiant John Kimball asserts there to be Probable Cause to believe that MICHELLE C. TROCONIS (DOB: 09/26/1974) did on Friday May 24, 2019, in the town of New Canaan, Connecticut, commit the following crimes on the person of Jennifer Farber Dulos which resulted in her death: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT/ MURDER (Sections 53a-49/53a-54a C.G.S.)

Reference: AA for MT

 

[Megnut]

OK, so we agree there was pressure being applied by the state on Bowman/MT. The expert said that state attorneys always apply pressure to get you to act when it's not prudent/in your client's best interest. Bowman's job was to not fall for that. He did. That's my point. He didn't know Fotis was gonna commit suicide. So MT's cooperation was going to be in play for Fotis' prosecution until Fotis went to trial. What opportunity was he going to lose if he had waited and declined the interviews or made a proffer himself on behalf of MT?

Lets say he declined to make his client available for interviews. The state arrests her. She's charged as an accessory. (Lets remember no one knows Fotis is going to commit suicide at this point.) Bowman can still make a deal for MT because the state wants Fotis!

JMO

Because if they recovered a body, they would have had FD. They wouldn't need MT.

That's what I'm saying. Narrow window for a sweetheart deal.

Now if that was his error and he should NOT have been working toward one, to me, that's just a matter of strategy. One path vs another.

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

1/13/25

LIVE: Troconis returns to court in bid for new trial

A woman convicted of crimes in connection with the disappearance and murder of a New Canaan mother returned to court on Tuesday.

www.wfsb.com

 

[Megnut]

That was dramatic-- big question from the State about whether his testimony would be heard in the trial, objection, overruled.

Atty Fitzpatrick puts both his hands up, like a full stop, and says, I'm going to give you eventing you want with that question -- my answer's gonna be no.

Theatre.

JMO

 

[Weki]

Because if they recovered a body, they would have had FD. They wouldn't need MT.

Clipped by me.

Hmmmm. I did not take Bowman's urgency as having to do with the recovery of the body but I could be wrong.

@Seattle1 Thank you for your comment/timeline that MT was already arrested during these interviews! I didn't realize that. So he has a client already facing serious charges, who is lying to the police in her 1st interview, and he allows her to continue? I think even if he was worried about the recovery of the body and losing the opportunity for a deal, once he sees his client is lying, I think he should've put the brakes. JMO

 

[BJarv]

Live. Cell phone issues and Judge is not pleased.

 

[BJarv]

Clipped by me.

Hmmmm. I did not take Bowman's urgency as having to do with the recovery of the body but I could be wrong.

@Seattle1 Thank you for your comment/timeline that MT was already arrested during these interviews! I didn't realize that. So he has a client already facing serious charges, who is lying to the police in her 1st interview, and he allows her to continue? I think even if he was worried about the recovery of the body and losing the opportunity for a deal, once he sees his client is lying, I think he should've put the brakes. JMO

The issue of urgency to find the body was very real at the time and was the primary focus of police and States Attorney. This was a missing mother of 5 and over a holiday weekend. All police resources were deployed over the entire state to find Jennifer or her body.

Hindsight is 100%.

 

[Weki]

Is it just me or is the feed/audio choppy?

 

[BJarv]

Ego blast imo from the Judge on how this is HIS decision even though he has respect for Judge Randolph.

Things that make you go MMMMMmmmm.

I am very concerned about this Judge and his view of the States Prosecutors and the validity of MT trial. This simply seems like an effort to reinvent the wheel and rewrite history by people who were not present for the trial or who have even read the entire transcript.

 

[Megnut]

Clipped by me.

Hmmmm. I did not take Bowman's urgency as having to do with the recovery of the body but I could be wrong.

@Seattle1 Thank you for your comment/timeline that MT was already arrested during these interviews! I didn't realize that. So he has a client already facing serious charges, who is lying to the police in her 1st interview, and he allows her to continue? I think even if he was worried about the recovery of the body and losing the opportunity for a deal, once he sees his client is lying, I think he should've put the brakes. JMO

We know that now. But it remains true IMO a sweetheart deal was her only and best bet.

She was going to be charged. She was going to serve time, if found guilty.

I absolutely hear what you're saying. Sweetheart deals ARE a gamble, for both sides. And AB was right -- don't go in there and lie.

Despite her display of lying, I still think his perception was they were covering ground. He believed she would further dismantle FD's alibi and strategy and provide effective counsel in limiting any time served.

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

OVERVIEW:

In December 2023, Judge Kevin Randolph denied /navMichelle Troconis' motions to suppress her statements from police interviews (Interviews 1-3) and DNA evidence, ruling the search warrants were valid and her right to counsel wasn't violated, as she had competent advice despite arguments about coercive tactics; this decision allowed those statements and evidence into her trial for the Jennifer Dulos case, rejecting the defense's claims of constitutional rights violations.

Background of the Suppression Hearings

• Defense Argument: Troconis' lawyer, Jon Schoenhorn, argued that investigators used deceptive tactics, misleading her and leveraging her family, leading to involuntary statements in her first two interviews (and a third).
• State's Position: Prosecutors maintained that investigators followed proper procedure and Troconis understood the needs of the investigation.

Judge Randolph's Ruling

• Denial of Motions: Judge Randolph denied the defense's request to suppress her DNA and statements from the interviews.
• Reasoning: He found the search warrants for her DNA were supported by probable cause and that she received "competent counsel" during her interviews, meaning her constitutional rights were not violated.

Impact on the Trial

• This ruling meant that the incriminating statements from her police interviews and DNA evidence could be presented to the jury during her main trial.

Judge denies motions to suppress Michelle Troconis’ police interviews, DNA evidence in Jennifer Dulos case

Judge Kevin Randolph denied motions to suppress Michelle Troconis’ police interviews and to suppress DNA evidence at her upcoming trial in connection to the disappearance and presumed death of Jennifer Dulos.

connecticut.news12.com

 

[BJarv]

Not reviewing the Bowman notes imo was a huge fail. Thoughts and opinions from Bowman are important. The expert says yes but not on a pre-hearing basis. I very much wonder if we are simply seeing a lazy expert who was more concerned with the $$ and not putting the entire picture together to put himself fully into the shoes of Bowman.

Very clear that the MT convos with Bowman were not available to Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick is claiming that this is not completely true. Fitzpatrick admits to knowing Colangelo. He did not choose to reach out to Colangelo or get the States file - Fitzpatrick did none of these things.

Lots of back and forth the the State and Fitzpatrick imo seems quite defensive as to not requesting these other items or seeking out Bowman notes or Colangelo conversation. I wonder why Fitzpatrick didn't seek out additional conversations and notes to expand his understanding of the situation at the time.

Conversation about differential of billing rate between Suppression hearing and this current expert testimony.

 

[Megnut]

If you throw out all the trees, is it still a forest?

They want everything out.

Her interviews, her phone, her timeline, her DNA....

I know this is about her rights and freedoms but it's tiresome. Years and years of legal theatre while five children are growing up without their beloved mother.

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

4/10/24

Judge denies Michelle Troconis' motions for acquittal and new trial, could vacate one charge

During his motion for a new trial, Jon Schoenhorn said he objected to the state's closing arguments, specifically the number of times of the state used the word lies.

longisland.news12.com

 

[Megnut]

Not reviewing the Bowman notes imo was a huge fail. Thoughts and opinions from Bowman are important. The expert says yes but not on a pre-hearing basis. I very much wonder if we are simply seeing a lazy expert who was more concerned with the $$ and not putting the entire picture together to put himself fully into the shoes of Bowman.

Facts don't matter. Appearances do. He's hoping the judge will be impressed by his wisdom -- a competent attorney would/ wouldn't...

Every defense attorney could second guess every other one.

Second guessing is not a basis for appeal IMO.

He didn't review Bowman's notes because it's easier to maintain his global (theoretical) position. Like a psychiatrist who never evaluates a defendant, just speaks in sweeping generalities.

JMO

 

[BJarv]

Facts don't matter. Appearances do. He's hoping the judge will be impressed by his wisdom -- a competent attorney would/ wouldn't...

Every defense attorney could second guess every other one.

Second guessing is not a basis for appeal IMO.

He didn't review Bowman's notes because it's easier to maintain his global (theoretical) position. Like a psychiatrist who never evaluates a defendant, just speaks in sweeping generalities.

JMO

Yes, broad brush and not seeking imo to truly understand the environment that Bowman was working in at the time and what was going on with police, Colangelo and MT. The scope here seems quite limited but worse than this imo it seems incomplete.

For the Habeas Judge here to effectively dismiss the suppression hearings of Judge Randolph when it was Judge Randolph was present and well aware of the situation on the ground at the time simple seems wrong as there was much useful testimony at the time of those hearing. I say this about Judge Randolph as I don't believe he supported CSP efforts fully and even he did not imo fully understand the exigent circumstance at the time to find Jennifer.

I am quite concerned about all of this and the defensiveness that I'm sensing from Fitzgerald the the current Judge effectively look back without seeming to give much or any credence to the prior work of Judge Randolph.

 

[Megnut]

If MT had been forthcoming, I think FD would have been jailed, unable to meet a higher bond.

He would have been tried and convicted, no suicide, and we'd all be angry she got away with murder, enjoying a sweetheart deal. She's have served 18 minutes in prison and would be on the sloped somewhere with her next meal ticket.

MT gambled.

And lost.

JMO