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

[Megnut]

Still not clear. Thursday mentioned and Friday. And whether MT will testify. Which doesn't make sense, since both sides rested.

https://www.wtnh.com/dulos/both-sides-rest-their-case-in-troconis-habeas-trial/

 

[Mysticeilis]

It just dawned on me! Look at this post over the last few weeks! How many sleuths are commenting? Just a handful! ( Don’t get me wrong - we are meaningful!).

However, if you look at so many other high profile cases going on here - we need backup. Of course the NBC News Miller followers are not backing us - we need some support here!

JUSTICE FOR JENNIFER!

 

[Jmoose]

Is there more tomorrow?

Possibly Friday, if the State wants to call witnesses-they’ll know Thursday.

 

[BJarv]

Did the parties rest?
And the petitioner was so pleased with her 'ineffective counsel argument,' that she's not calling Mama T to support no habla Ingles facade?

Idk. Detectives kimball and ventruska I believe were on the list too. Why are all the witnesses not being asked to testify? What is the State doing here?

 

[Jmoose]

Idk. Detectives kimball and ventruska I believe were on the list too. Why are all the witnesses not being asked to testify? What is the State doing here?

The State gets their chance-if they want to call Kimball and Ventresca, they can call them on Friday.

 

[BJarv]

It just dawned on me! Look at this post over the last few weeks! How many sleuths are commenting? Just a handful! ( Don’t get me wrong - we are meaningful!).

However, if you look at so many other high profile cases going on here - we need backup. Of course the NBC News Miller followers are not backing us - we need some support here!

JUSTICE FOR JENNIFER!

It’s sadly always been a loyal group of people here that have been vocal since day 1. I’m glad the group is back and paying attention and bearing witness to yet more shenanigans in the CT Judiciary.

To see a Judge speak on the record today to imo discredit the 2.5 years of direct experience of Judge Randolph today told me everything I needed to know about this particular Judge. I’m glad others were here watching today to bear witness to what happens in States like CT who have a judiciary filled with Judges like this one who imo don’t believe in incarceration and don’t seem to even trust the proceedings of their colleagues or support the efforts of law enforcement. I’ve sadly seen these issues play out many times in CT and every time I see it again I tell myself I won’t get angry. But each time I do get angry. I’m angry yet again for the children of JF that it seems like they yet again have been let down by the State of CT. I understand the family and friends not speaking out more over the years as I think they had the wisdom to know that justice for their deceased loved one could not be found in CT via the judicial process. It’s imo a heartbreaking aspect of this case. Jennifer fought harder to
Protect her children than anyone from the state of CT ever fought to protect her as a victim either in family court or any of the criminal proceedings. I also don’t understand why this habeas action was permitted prior to the appeal as my prior understanding was that the appeal needed to be heard and resolved.

After the initial suppression hearing, I lost faith in judge Randolph as I believed him to be biased against CSP and not understanding the on the ground exigency of the situation in the early days of this case and then the sentencing of MT confirmed all the awful things I have long believed about the state of ct not having any interest in justice for victims of DV and violent crime. Judge Randolph oddly seemed to believe that there was a shred of good in MT when it was clear to anyone paying attention that her entire life demonstrated caring only for herself and nothing at all good was involved with anything she ever did. She even used her own daughter as meal ticket to support her affair with Dulos for years and her family also support d the affair. I long believed the best thing about the incarceration was that MT would be removed from the life of her daughter and perhaps the daughter might experience freedom from her influence and imo further moral corruption. Listening to the daughters words at trial though I don’t think the apple fell far from the tree as this was the same daughter who allowed herself to be used by MT and Dulos to communicate with the Dulos children when this communication had been barred by the court. I guess it’s just the way of grifters and liars and that is who I believe the Troconis clan to all he as we have watched them operate now for many years.

Seeing this Judge in action during this proceeding and the way he chose to manage his courtroom and treat the State, has me sadly not feeling any differently about him than I did about Judge Randolph. I believe that judge Randolph operated from principles and personal beliefs but I’m not so sure that this Judge even has such a personal moral core and that makes me quite sad even though it doesn’t surprise me that this judge has been on the bench in CT for over 25 years. It’s a sad state of affairs imo and I’m frankly sick at having had to witness it all yet again.

All I can say is that I hope the attorneys in CT watch this sham of a proceeding and take a hard look at how this Jusge handled this proceeding and realise that this type of sham proceeding can be brought against them and in the same way a member of the CT bar of I think over 50 years has been treated here like atty bowman.

I find this all stunning that a lazy and unprepared local attorney who imo is no peer of atty bowman’s is able to step in without even requesting the notes of atty bowman and make the claims that he did. This attorney did not read the entire transcript, didn’t know why his testimony and report had been excluded by judge Randolph in the trial suppression hearing and was so lazy that he couldn’t even keep track of his own cases over the years to maintain an accurate CV! I was able to use Lexis to compile the data for this lazy attorney and it took me less than 5 min to complete! Do we want lazy and unserious legal professionals such as this person being taking seriously in a court of law and be given the power of being an expert?

I think we need another expert to opine on whether the fitz person is a competent expert.

All I can say is that I have questions not only about the judge and how this entire proceeding was handled but I don’t know why the state diidnt object to this particular expert as imo they had years of experience but imo did not qualify as a peer of atty bowman. I also question why bowman was not able to rebut the extensive reinvention of history by the expert and the imo unacceptable speculation put forward with little in the way of either critical thinking or basic level logic.

 

[Seattle1]

In a nutshell, the habeas corpus writ is typically an inmate's method of last resort to be freed from prison -- after the convicted has exhausted their appeal efforts.

In Latin, habeas corpus means “you should have the body.” It requires a judge to literally have a detainee physically present to weigh the legality of their confinement. It is the government’s responsibility to prove that the individual’s detention is lawful, and if it fails, the person must be freed. But let's be clear: MT was not arbitrarily imprisoned. There was just cause to arrest MT, and she was never deprived of due process.

In MT's amended brief, she argued she is being unconstitutionally imprisoned because she did not receive effective legal representation from her former attorney, Andrew Bowman, a veteran defense lawyer with more than 50 years of experience. She claims Bowman failed to inform her of her Miranda rights, and other standard legal protections before she spoke with police.

IMO, MT failed to prove this was the case, beginning with Bowman uncovering video evidence showing the lead prosecutor expressing doubt about MT's involvement in Dulos’ murder. But if this evidence wasn't used effectively at trial, that's on JLS-- not Bowman!

To prevail with the writ, MT's legal team must prove not only that Bowman’s representation was ineffective, but also that it directly led to her conviction. They then have to prove that if he had been effective, she wouldn’t have been convicted.

For those who followed this case, I think most will agree that had MT actually cooperated with investigators from the beginning, it's doubtful FD would have ever been released on bail, and MT wouldn't have ever been charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

Nonetheless, if MT wasn't charged in January 2020, I think the clear surveillance evidence would convict MT a second time for Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence, in violation of Section 53a-155 C.G.S8., and Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree, in violation of Section 53a-165aa C.G.S.16

MOO


FOX/61: MT has the cart before the horse

 

[Seattle1]

If both sides rested late Tuesday, and given MT decided not to speak, it seems to me that the only potential questions might be from the Judge-- related to the Exhibits previously filed.

 

[pernickety]

If both sides rested late Tuesday, and given MT decided not to speak, it seems to me that the only potential questions might be from the Judge-- related to the Exhibits previously filed.

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ne...oconis-andrew-bowman-dulos-trial-21292020.php

Excerpts:

…”Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Russell C. Zentner, defending the state, will have until early Thursday afternoon to decide if he wants to call witnesses to buttress his defense that Bowman was competent and her conviction should stand.

The trial will enter its fourth day Friday if Zentner decides he wants to call witnesses. If not, Superior Court Judge Carl Schuman will give attorneys for Troconis and the state a date by which they need to file a brief in support of their position and a date by which they need to turn in a rebuttal brief.

The judge will then have 120 days to issue a written ruling on whether Bowman was effective and what the remedy would be if he was not. Schuman said late Tuesday afternoon that he didn't think he would need the full 120 days to issue a ruling.

During Tuesday’s testimony, Zentner peppered Fitzpatrick, Troconis' third and final witness, with questions regarding his credibility and pointing out that he was being paid more than $30,000 by the Troconis family to discuss his opinion of Bowman during the trial. …

…Zentner questioned Fitzpatrick on Tuesday on the subject of Troconis’ proficiency in English, noting that although a Spanish-speaking interpreter was present at her criminal trial, there wasn’t an interpreter at the habeas trial. …”

“…Zentner also played a clip of Fitzpatrick discussing the Troconis police interviews with NBC Connecticut. During the clip, Fitzpatrick said he believed Bowman didn’t stop Troconis’ interviews because he thought Troconis could “handle it” and that he thought Bowman believed the answers would be advantageous to Troconis’ case…”

 

[Eli9]

In a nutshell, the habeas corpus writ is typically an inmate's method of last resort to be freed from prison -- after the convicted has exhausted their appeal efforts.

In Latin, habeas corpus means “you should have the body.” It requires a judge to literally have a detainee physically present to weigh the legality of their confinement. It is the government’s responsibility to prove that the individual’s detention is lawful, and if it fails, the person must be freed. But let's be clear: MT was not arbitrarily imprisoned. There was just cause to arrest MT, and she was never deprived of due process.

In MT's amended brief, she argued she is being unconstitutionally imprisoned because she did not receive effective legal representation from her former attorney, Andrew Bowman, a veteran defense lawyer with more than 50 years of experience. She claims Bowman failed to inform her of her Miranda rights, and other standard legal protections before she spoke with police.

IMO, MT failed to prove this was the case, beginning with Bowman uncovering video evidence showing the lead prosecutor expressing doubt about MT's involvement in Dulos’ murder. But if this evidence wasn't used effectively at trial, that's on JLS-- not Bowman!

To prevail with the writ, MT's legal team must prove not only that Bowman’s representation was ineffective, but also that it directly led to her conviction. They then have to prove that if he had been effective, she wouldn’t have been convicted.

For those who followed this case, I think most will agree that had MT actually cooperated with investigators from the beginning, it's doubtful FD would have ever been released on bail, and MT wouldn't have ever been charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

Nonetheless, if MT wasn't charged in January 2020, I think the clear surveillance evidence would convict MT a second time for Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence, in violation of Section 53a-155 C.G.S8., and Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree, in violation of Section 53a-165aa C.G.S.16

MOO


FOX/61: MT has the cart before the horse

Does the judge know that no appeals have been filed?

Someone play devil's advocate with me. Bowman continually told MT that she did not have to talk to LE but she could exercise her right to do so. He also advised her she should not lie. She did lie. Over and over again. That led to the arrest charges. But as you say JLS represented her at her trial not Bowman. So how did Bowman's ineffective counsel lead to her conviction?

IMO both Bowman and the State thought she would roll on Dulos. But she didn't--couldn't.

 

[BJarv]

Link for video of Tuesdays proceeding:

 

[Seattle1]

Does the judge know that no appeals have been filed?

Yes, you may recall before the proceedings began, Judge Schuman questioned MT thoroughly if she was aware of the State's Request to Canvass the Petitioner, and Schuman outlined all the client-attorney rights she was waiving with her Habeas Corpus petition.

Also, MT has filed an appeal, but advanced the writ of HC before a date set for her appellate oral argument.

 

[BJarv]

Does the judge know that no appeals have been filed?

Someone play devil's advocate with me. Bowman continually told MT that she did not have to talk to LE but she could exercise her right to do so. He also advised her she should not lie. She did lie. Over and over again. That led to the arrest charges. But as you say JLS represented her at her trial not Bowman. So how did Bowman's ineffective counsel lead to her conviction?

IMO both Bowman and the State thought she would roll on Dulos. But she didn't--couldn't.

Its an interesting question you are asking. I do wonder WHY MT didn't go the extra step of questioning the representation of Schoenhorn as he was as you say the 'trial attorney' and was responsible for the failure at the suppression hearing about the 3 interviews? I wonder if there was quid pro quo for the Troconis crew NOT bringing Habeas against him in return for him putting the suppression hearing issues on the transcript and introducing the issue of the Bowman representation at trial? Can't you just imagine him saying to MT and Mama Troconis, "We put this on the record now and a Judge 3 years from now will simply release you and it doesn't matter what Judge Randolph rules. Just sit tight and do your time in prison as the State of CT will simply release you." Prison and bail reform in CT imo has been a cancer and defense attorneys such as Schoenhorn realise that early release is a given and get out of prison cards are easily obtained by Judges that don't believe in incarceration.

The conclusion that the ENTIRE REASON for the MT conviction at trial is due to the 3 interviews and that a questionably credentialed and situated 'expert' such as the Fitz person is to be the determining factor on this imo great 'leap of logic' and that the Judge can simply dismiss the many days spent on the suppression hearings under Judge Randolph is something that I simply cannot understand as being either right or fair and having read the rules of the habeas process, I also question whether what the Judge has set up here is in line with the guidelines. I'm also not sure whether the Fitz comment supporting the preposterous conclusion that MT was convicted based SOLELY on the 3 interviews SHE CHOSE to do, was stricken from the record. I recall the objection but I don't recall the Judges ruling.

MT was convicted by a jury of her peers following a long and quite comprehensive trial that was well run imo by Judge Randolph (my disagreements with Judge Randolph are documented in these threads but I never doubted his ability to effectively run a trial for MT) and so for anyone to claim that it was SOLELY the 3 interviews that she CHOOSE to GIVE AND WHERE SHE CHOOSE TO LIE THAT CONVICTED HER is illogical.

MT was warned by Atty Bowman to tell the truth and she was told also that she didn't have to speak with police. MT CHOOSE to disregard Counsel and is now using Habeus proceeding to effect a 'do over'. I do not understand why this entire Habeus action was not denied until after the appeal had been heard? Are we seeing yet again that rules are for some and not for ALL? IDK but something about this entire situation isn't making sense and so far imo the State Prosecutor hasn't explained this aspect of why habeas and why now in advance of trial on appeal?

I wish we could hear directly from Judge Randolph on the suppression hearings at trial and WHY he chose to dismiss the testimony of the Fitz person! For the current Judge to dismiss the work of Judge Randolph is something that I believe to be wrong as it was unclear from what the Judge said in the hearing as to whether he would even review the transcript from the suppression hearings. Further, the idea that the Fitz person wouldn't know the reason for his trial work as an expert to be dismissed is preposterous.

I hope the State allows for rebuttal by Attorney Bowman as imo he was absolutely wrongly victimized by this proceeding and where someone not present for the trial (or who had read the transcript or the Bowman notes) was allowed to speculate as to the decisions and actions to defend MT. I find this quite wrong and frankly outrageous. I also wish we could hear from Det Kimball as he and his entire group of people were the ones that tracked back the MT timeline and documented as many of her lies as possible. Also, why not bring in Attorney URSO and have him explain in detail the process of having his client without a cooperation/immunity agreement for over a year and how much time PG had to spend helping CSP without any guarantee of a cooperation agreement! The idea that MT and the Troconis crew thing a cooperation agreement is an 'entitlement' is something that I also find preposterous and frankly I think Atty Colangelo did a horrible job on the stand explaining this clearly to the Judge. The body language imo between the Judge and Colangelo was also troubling and I haven't had time to research why this might have been the case but based on watching it play out, I think there is something there and it troubled me greatly. CT is a small place and so the likelihood that this Judge and Colangelo hadn't worked together in the past imo is highly unlikely.

I would like to see another competent expert to opine on the Fitz person who imo has the only the qualifications of being a member of the bar of CT and a defense attorney in Fairfield County, CT in common with Atty Bowman as they are by no means peers based on experience and results. I found it fascinating that the Fitz person was himself subject to I believe 3-4 (it was unclear) habeas filings as well and Atty Bowman with a much longer career has never had a habeas action prior to this imo farcical one.

For amusement as well as some information, I really would enjoy hearing from Schoenhorn (or his sidekick whose name I never recall) about his recollections of the trial suppression hearings. What I find fascinating is that he was successful in getting the MT phone kicked from evidence AND YET, the jury still convicted and did so quickly. Shoehorn tried everything he could including imo improperly dragging in the sealed Herman report AND YET the jury still convicted MT.

It simply makes little sense that an attorney who believes in good faith that their client is telling the truth, can then be held responsible for their clients decision to lie and then go further and lie about lies. My guess is that MT and the Troconis crew underestimated the diligence of the CSP and Detective Kimball in particular and no simply want a 'do over' for their prior bad choices. Its ironic that this is not all that different than the entire life of MT where Mama Troconis has been her personal 'fixer' for her many questionable life choices imo.

 

[BJarv]

Yes, you may recall before the proceedings began, Judge Schuman questioned MT thoroughly if she was aware of the State's Request to Canvass the Petitioner, and Schuman outlined all the client-attorney rights she was waiving with her Habeas Corpus petition.

Also, MT has filed an appeal, but advanced the writ of HC before a date set for her appellate oral argument.

This is where I'm confused as I thought the rules stated that exhaustion of appeal was REQUIRED prior to Habeas? Why would the Judge allow this hearing now? I'm also not sure that the appeal is even fully briefed as my recollection is that the State had requested additional time back in December 2025.

 

[Seattle1]

I'm thinking MT must be feeling pretty smug about her victories (technical or otherwise) thus far-- including the State dropping its appeal (AC 47734) of Judge Randolph vacating one of her conspiracy to commit evidence tampering charges, and the dismissal of her contempt of court charge. She probably believes the writ of habeas corpus will be her hat trick.

The state of Connecticut has withdrawn its appeal of trial judge Kevin Randolph’s ruling at Michelle Troconis’ sentencing to vacate one of her two counts of conspiracy to commit evidence tampering.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1923002101447151663

https://twitter.com/x/status/1923002106153209859

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935371845643198897

State’s Attorney Paul Ferencek brought up that initially, the state believed the matter would be dealt with during the trial (there was supposed to be a hearing before closings but that changed).
@News12CT
9:30 AM · Jun 18, 2025

Ferencek also said it would be a waste of time and money to pick a jury & go to trial on this matter when the max sentence is 6 months & Troconis is already serving a 14.5 year sentence. “The state would rather focus its efforts on fighting Troconis’ appeal.”
@News12CT
9:30 AM · Jun 18, 2025

Troconis’ family and friends in the courtroom applauded as the judge dismissed the case and told her, “Congratulations.”
@News12CT
9:30 AM · Jun 18, 2025

 

[Seattle1]

This is where I'm confused as I thought the rules stated that exhaustion of appeal was REQUIRED prior to Habeas? Why would the Judge allow this hearing now? I'm also not sure that the appeal is even fully briefed as my recollection is that the State had requested additional time back in December 2025.

The rules don't prevent filing the writ of HC prior to exhaustion of appeal, providing the petitioner waives certain rights--which MT did. It's simply not the normal course.

[ETA - State prisoners cannot file a federal writ unless they exhaust all available state remedies. The federal court will likely dismiss the writ if the defendant fails to exhaust all available remedies.]

IMO, MT went this route because she thinks she has a quicker and better chance of getting a new trial, AND released from custody, by way of the HC, versus her direct appeal. IMO, asking to transfer her appeal from the Appellate to the Supreme Court is the first sign she's stretching for a target that she can't reach.

MT's appeal was initially due in Feb 2025, and after multiple extensions granted by the Court, the brief was finally e-filed on 11/10/25. (Before the State dropped its Appeal in May 2025, the parties appeared to be matching each other's extensions- hoping the arguments would occur at the same time).

However, on 12/5/2025, MT filed a Motion seeking to Transfer the Appeal from the Appellate Court to Supreme Court, and the Court has not responded to the Motion, as of this date. The 8 pg Motion is linked below.

On 12/5/25, the State requested an extension of time to file Appellee's/Respondent's brief -- granted to 6/29/26.

https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=EMhRlxgc%2fF2KwlBPWwcDoA%3d%3d

ETA: On 11/7/25, MT Noticed the Court on the sealed report included in the appellant's brief that cannot be made public, and advised of the redaction brief filed.

https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=EfeCMYWzqf%2f5iFN4D2w0kA%3d%3d

Appellate/Supreme Case Look-up

 

[BJarv]

The rules don't prevent filing the writ of HC prior to exhaustion of appeal, providing the petitioner waives certain rights--which MT did. It's simply not the normal course.

IMO, MT went this route because she thinks she has a quicker and better chance of getting a new trial, AND released from custody, by way of the HC, versus her direct appeal. IMO, asking to transfer her appeal from the Appellate to the Supreme Court is the first sign she's stretching for a target that she can't reach.

MT's appeal was initially due in Feb 2025, and after multiple extensions granted by the Court, the brief was finally e-filed on 11/10/25. (Before the State dropped its Appeal in May 2025, the parties appeared to be matching each other's extensions- hoping the arguments would occur at the same time).

However, on 12/5/2025, MT filed a Motion seeking to Transfer the Appeal from the Appellate Court to Supreme Court, and the Court has not responded to the Motion, as of this date. The 8 pg Motion is linked below.

On 12/5/25, the State requested an extension of time to file Appellee's/Respondent's brief -- granted to 6/29/26.

https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=EMhRlxgc%2fF2KwlBPWwcDoA%3d%3d

ETA: On 11/7/25, MT Noticed the Court on the sealed report included in the appellant's brief that cannot be made public, and advised of the redaction brief filed.

https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=EfeCMYWzqf%2f5iFN4D2w0kA%3d%3d

Appellate/Supreme Case Look-up

Thank you for this info. I hope between now and Friday that the State gets its ducks in a row. I simply do not understand how Atty Bowman doesn't get an opportunity to rebut outright speculation of another attorney as my understanding of the proceeding was that the so called 'expert' was to have reviewed the record (this was not completely done by Fitz as they not only didn't review the entire trial record but they didn't even fully review the Judge Randolph opinions/orders related to suppression or request Atty Bowmans notes or even request to speak with Attorney Bowman). I frankly found the testimony of the so called 'expert' quite disturbing as imo it simply sought to reinvent a history of what happened via connection the dots of missing information using pure speculation and started from the premise that a cooperation agreement was 'best practice' or 'required' for MT to speak with the police. I'm quite baffled by how Atty Bowman can be held responsible for the informed choices of MT and her mother as it was made quite clear to 'tell the truth' and that 'you don't have to speak with police', when the path to some kind of immunity or cooperation agreement was shown quite clearly IN THIS CASE with PG to absolutely not follow the path outlined by the so called 'expert' witness. I would also like to see Colangelo recalled to explain the PG process so that the Judge has that on the record and also a more detailed explanation of his thought process on the MT lying and lack of qualification for a cooperation agreement. This has all been quite disappointing to watch play out and I say that as someone that has zero faith in the pursuit of justice in the State of CT.

 

[BJarv]

I'm thinking MT must be feeling pretty smug about her victories (technical or otherwise) thus far-- including the State dropping its appeal (AC 47734) of Judge Randolph vacating one of her conspiracy to commit evidence tampering charges, and the dismissal of her contempt of court charge. She probably believes the writ of habeas corpus will be her hat trick.

This choice by the State imo was an epic fail and imo shows simple continued laziness by the States Atty in Norwalk/Stamford. The tampering hindering charges were quite strong and I am baffled by not appealing. Sadly I think this is just more Corrupticut style justice playing out and is so damn disappointing.

 

[Jmoose]

This choice by the State imo was an epic fail and imo shows simple continued laziness by the States Atty in Norwalk/Stamford. The tampering hindering charges were quite strong and I am baffled by not appealing. Sadly I think this is just more Corrupticut style justice playing out and is so damn disappointing.

The State probably knows the ropes in CT, and wasn’t being lazy, but more likely practical-you know, like they may have realized that their appeal would go no place, so why expend the energy. They know these judges don’t want to bother with all of the separate charges when they can stick the defendant with one, especially when everything’s going to run concurrently, and the defendant won’t spend another day in jail. I didn’t care so much about the second tampering charge, but I really wanted the judge to stick her with the contempt charge. Not doing so only enboldens people like MT.

 

[Seattle1]

Thank you for this info. I hope between now and Friday that the State gets its ducks in a row. I simply do not understand how Atty Bowman doesn't get an opportunity to rebut outright speculation of another attorney as my understanding of the proceeding was that the so called 'expert' was to have reviewed the record (this was not completely done by Fitz as they not only didn't review the entire trial record but they didn't even fully review the Judge Randolph opinions/orders related to suppression or request Atty Bowmans notes or even request to speak with Attorney Bowman). I frankly found the testimony of the so called 'expert' quite disturbing as imo it simply sought to reinvent a history of what happened via connection the dots of missing information using pure speculation and started from the premise that a cooperation agreement was 'best practice' or 'required' for MT to speak with the police. I'm quite baffled by how Atty Bowman can be held responsible for the informed choices of MT and her mother as it was made quite clear to 'tell the truth' and that 'you don't have to speak with police', when the path to some kind of immunity or cooperation agreement was shown quite clearly IN THIS CASE with PG to absolutely not follow the path outlined by the so called 'expert' witness. I would also like to see Colangelo recalled to explain the PG process so that the Judge has that on the record and also a more detailed explanation of his thought process on the MT lying and lack of qualification for a cooperation agreement. This has all been quite disappointing to watch play out and I say that as someone that has zero faith in the pursuit of justice in the State of CT.

I truly expected AB would be called to rebut Fitz testimony, so I don't understand why reports indicated both sides rested on Tuesday??? And yes, Former State's Atty Colangelo was a weak witness for the State. I think the best he offered was that he always considered that MT could testify against Fd up until his demise. Why not just confirm that he had a verbal agreement with AB, that he would put in writing when MT became consistent with the information she was telling investigators!