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

[Jmoose]

And not only Judge Heller. Judge Blawie and Judge Randolph should be furious too--and calling upon the Chief Disciplinary Counsel to look into whether there was involvement of any attorney.

I sort of blame Judge Blawie for giving it to Schoenhorn in the first place. And really blame Judge Randolph for not lowering the boom on all of them-and for not also holding Mami in contempt, along with Audrey Felson.

 

[Jmoose]

Yes @pernickety ….. and the only thing IMO that could be any worse, is if for some reason there is belief that it is somehow up to the estate of JF to press for conformance with judicial requirements. That would be horrid if the case. A contempt citation was issued against the convicted felon! And those watching the trial all saw the offense.

As you note too…… why isn’t / aren’t some investigative journalists on this? Talk about ‘low hanging fruit’ IMO. IANAL. Something is up IMO. MOO

What could be up, though? What are the possibilities?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

What could be up, though? What are the possibilities?

I don’t know @Jmoose ….. but a cynic, myself included, wonders is there something that could disparage someone or someone else involved? Is there something that someone does not want disclosed or made public? Why else does it seem IMO something is being covered up or hidden?

IANAL…. but isn’t there an edict that certain professionals (such as doctors and lawyers) don’t speak negatively of another? IMO the optics on this are horrid.

And unfortunately justice for CT courts and for JF, a still missing mother of five young children seems to be lost in this matter. SMH. MOO

 

[Jmoose]

I don’t know @Jmoose ….. but a cynic, myself included, wonders is there something that could disparage someone or someone else involved? Is there something that someone does not want disclosed or made public? Why else does it seem IMO something is being covered up or hidden?

IANAL…. but isn’t there an edict that certain professionals (such as doctors and lawyers) don’t speak negatively of another? IMO the optics on this are horrid.

And unfortunately justice for CT courts and for JF, a still missing mother of five young children seems to be lost in this matter. SMH. MOO

If an edict is an unwritten law, then maybe you’re right. My husband was just asking me about this case today, and I tried to explain to him that they keep kicking the contempt charge down the road-he said “well, the report was on her screen, and people could see it, and she wasn’t supposed to have it or distribute it, right?” So to him, it looked like a clear case of contempt of court. Obviously, some lawyer is ultimately responsible for her having it, because either a lawyer gave it to Dulos or was careless enough to let him steal it (we know he had it because the police found it) and he gave it to her, or Schoenhorn and Felson gave it to her. Or maybe KM gave it to her-Dulos may have given a copy to him before the murder to see how it legally could be used to his advantage. In any event, some lawyer, who they do not appear to want to sanction, had a hand in this.

 

[Seattle1]

If an edict is an unwritten law, then maybe you’re right. My husband was just asking me about this case today, and I tried to explain to him that they keep kicking the contempt charge down the road-he said “well, the report was on her screen, and people could see it, and she wasn’t supposed to have it or distribute it, right?” So to him, it looked like a clear case of contempt of court. Obviously, some lawyer is ultimately responsible for her having it, because either a lawyer gave it to Dulos or was careless enough to let him steal it (we know he had it because the police found it) and he gave it to her, or Schoenhorn and Felson gave it to her. Or maybe KM gave it to her-Dulos may have given a copy to him before the murder to see how it legally could be used to his advantage. In any event, some lawyer, who they do not appear to want to sanction, had a hand in this.

But all of the above might very well say MT stole it and/or very well did not receive it willingly from them, so here we are...

 

[pernickety]

I don’t know @Jmoose ….. but a cynic, myself included, wonders is there something that could disparage someone or someone else involved? Is there something that someone does not want disclosed or made public? Why else does it seem IMO something is being covered up or hidden?

IANAL…. but isn’t there an edict that certain professionals (such as doctors and lawyers) don’t speak negatively of another? IMO the optics on this are horrid.

And unfortunately justice for CT courts and for JF, a still missing mother of five young children seems to be lost in this matter. SMH. MOO

Who's leaning on Judge Hernandez to push for a settlement--so the contempt charge will go away? And why aren't there any journalists (or bloggers) in CT who take notice of such things?
I went on Law & Crime and searched for anything about Troconis and the contempt charge. The box said "nothing". Tho' there's plenty about Troconis's trial. So maybe L&C doesn't want to host discussions about the contempt charge because MT has pointed her finger at their videographer for capturing her mischief?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

But all of the above might very well say MT stole it and/or very well did not receive it willingly from them, so here we are...

Yes, but it would seem a good forensic examination of that laptop, the file, and its electronic signatures and history would answer much. Much if not all IMO.

And any attempts IMO to disparage the courtroom camera monitor or display is just window dressing and shifting blame. Unless someone does not want to look? Why is the key question IMO. MOO

 

[pernickety]

If an edict is an unwritten law, then maybe you’re right. My husband was just asking me about this case today, and I tried to explain to him that they keep kicking the contempt charge down the road-he said “well, the report was on her screen, and people could see it, and she wasn’t supposed to have it or distribute it, right?” So to him, it looked like a clear case of contempt of court. Obviously, some lawyer is ultimately responsible for her having it, because either a lawyer gave it to Dulos or was careless enough to let him steal it (we know he had it because the police found it) and he gave it to her, or Schoenhorn and Felson gave it to her. Or maybe KM gave it to her-Dulos may have given a copy to him before the murder to see how it legally could be used to his advantage. In any event, some lawyer, who they do not appear to want to sanction, had a hand in this.

According to News 12 report (I posted above), Horn "referenced" Norm Pattis about the matter, but they apparently cut out that part of their video--showing what Horn did say about Pattis, nor did they give us a direct quote as to what Horn said about Pattis, but beat around the bush with their awkward word salad. What I remember Horn saying on a video a day after it happened was, "She didn't get it from me. Norm Pattis had a copy of it." To me that sounded like Horn's insinuation that she got it from Pattis. So who persuaded News 12 to abridge their video of Horn?

 

[Jmoose]

According to News 12 report (I posted above), Horn "referenced" Norm Pattis about the matter, but they apparently cut out that part of their video--showing what Horn did say about Pattis, nor did they give us a direct quote as to what Horn said about Pattis, but beat around the bush with their awkward word salad. What I remember Horn saying on a video a day after it happened was, "She didn't get it from me. Norm Pattis had a copy of it." To me that sounded like Horn's insinuation that she got it from Pattis. So who persuaded News 12 to abridge their video of Horn?

Norm Pattis must have kicked up a fuss-but I am not convinced that she got it from him. Why would he bother with her at all, at this point? Helping MT doesn’t benefit Pattis at all, I don’t think.

 

[Jmoose]

But all of the above might very well say MT stole it and/or very well did not receive it willingly from them, so here we are...

She could have stolen it, but who could she have stolen it from…only Dulos, I think, and he wasn’t supposed to have it, either. I just don’t understand why these lawyers are being protected. Professional courstesy? Probably.

 

[Jmoose]

Yes, but it would seem a good forensic examination of that laptop, the file, and its electronic signatures and history would answer much. Much if not all IMO.

And any attempts IMO to disparage the courtroom camera monitor or display is just window dressing and shifting blame. Unless someone does not want to look? Why is the key question IMO. MOO

And the cameraman did not merely catch it-she deliberately turned the laptop so it could be seen. I’ve been in that courtroom for her trial on multiple occasions, and it isn’t like that poor cameraman had room to move around. He stayed in the same place every day. She put that display in his way, effectively, so people could see it. I don’t know what Judge Hernandez’s problem is, but he (and everyone else) seem reluctant to deal with this issue.

 

[pernickety]

And the cameraman did not merely catch it-she deliberately turned the laptop so it could be seen. I’ve been in that courtroom for her trial on multiple occasions, and it isn’t like that poor cameraman had room to move around. He stayed in the same place every day. She put that display in his way, effectively, so people could see it. I don’t know what Judge Hernandez’s problem is, but he (and everyone else) seem reluctant to deal with this issue.

Lawyer Lee had a discussion of it with her commenters. Lee says the state would have to get a warrant to get the laptop, and that would present a lot of attorney/client privilege issues.

 

[Jmoose]

Lawyer Lee had a discussion of it with her commenters. Lee says the state would have to get a warrant to get the laptop, and that would present a lot of attorney/client privilege issues.

Then maybe that’s the answer to why nothing has really been done. How do you suppose MT would know that this would be an issue for the prosecutors? She (MT) doesn’t seem that bright to me that she could figure it out on her own, so maybe somebody told her (Felson? Schoenhorn?)

So nothing is going to come of this contempt of court, it seems. This seals it for me, that her lawyers were going for a mistrial, at least, and an acquittal by jury manipulation in the best case scenario.

 

[Seattle1]

She could have stolen it, but who could she have stolen it from…only Dulos, I think, and he wasn’t supposed to have it, either. I just don’t understand why these lawyers are being protected. Professional courstesy? Probably.

Personally, I do believe MT's source of the Herman (draft) report on her computer was Fd going back to when he had a copy before the hearing date, and before it was Ordered sealed by the Court. What we know from the Court record (because JLS was sure to make the record) is that MT did not obtain the report from JLS.

 

[pernickety]

Norm Pattis must have kicked up a fuss-but I am not convinced that she got it from him. Why would he bother with her at all, at this point? Helping MT doesn’t benefit Pattis at all, I don’t think.

Would satisfy his revenge against Gloria F. for having Weinstein claw back a big part of NP's last retainer fee from the Fotis D. estate to meet the judgment awarded to the Farber trust in the civil case? MOO and just wild speculation.

 

[pernickety]

Personally, I do believe MT's source of the Herman (draft) report on her computer was Fd going back to when he had a copy before the hearing date, and before it was Ordered sealed by the Court. What we know from the Court record (because JLS was sure to make the record) is that MT did not obtain the report from JLS.

But why would he send it to her computer, when he could've just run it off on his office copying machine and handed it to her? And didn't LE take her computer from the house? I seem to remember that Mami T was objecting when they wanted to take her computer too?

 

[LosAngeles]

Lawyer Lee had a discussion of it with her commenters. Lee says the state would have to get a warrant to get the laptop, and that would present a lot of attorney/client privilege issues.

And they are reluctant to deal with KM's issue as well. Somethings strange about that (move forward or dismiss, please). Somethings very off to me not dealing w. KM's criminal involvement. I think he knows where all of the bodies are buried in the State of Connecticut judicial system and they do not want that exposed what so ever.

 

[Jmoose]

Would satisfy his revenge against Gloria F. for having Weinstein claw back a big part of NP's last retainer fee from the Fotis D. estate to meet the judgment awarded to the Farber trust in the civil case? MOO and just wild speculation.

I imagine it would…even though he was effectively stealing from those 5 orphaned children. Pattis really has some, uh let’s call it stugots, for trying to hang onto that money!

 

[Seattle1]

But why would he send it to her computer, when he could've just run it off on his office copying machine and handed it to her? And didn't LE take her computer from the house? I seem to remember that Mami T was objecting when they wanted to take her computer too?

I've never questioned an electronic version (scanned hard copy) was at the hand of MT, which likely enabled her to share it with her entire family, long before her arrest!

Unless I'm missing something, we are now discussing the report present on a subject computer that was in front of MT at the defense table on Thursday, Feb 15, 2024, right?

I don't think we know anything about the laptop she had in Court with her or how/when she acquired it or when accessed the report using the subject computer. I don't think it matters.

For all we know, MT could have picked up the laptop on ebay a week before trial! As to accessing the report on Feb 15 and showing it during trial, in contempt of court, she could have downloaded the report the same day from the very email attachment she previously sent to her mother, or received it from an email from her mother, or other! Again, it doesn't matter.

The computer needed not be involved either. MT could have just as easily had the same a hard copy of the report on the defense table at trial on Feb 15, holding up select page(s) in front of her for the gallery behind her and/or at camera angle, for the targeted MSM, and the effect the same.

What mattered to the Court, and reflected in the subsequent charges filed against MT is the sealed Herman report, long made an issue by the defense, repeatedly denied admissible as evidence in this trial by the Court, MT willing acted to intentionally ignore the Court's rulings by displaying portions of the same report in the courtroom, seeking to share it with the gallery and the public, the very definition of contempt.

Also, the contempt charge here was independent of the murder trial. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

March 1, 2024 -- MT's PCA for Contempt: Ref paragraphs 21 - 25:

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

ETA - CT Statute

Section 51-33a - Criminal contempt

(a) Any person who violates the dignity and authority of any court, in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, or any officer of any court who misbehaves in the conduct of his official duties shall be guilty of contempt and shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months or both.(b) No person charged with violating this section may be tried for the violation before the same judge against whom the alleged contempt was perpetrated. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-33a

Section 51-33a - Criminal contempt, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-33a | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 51-33a - Criminal contempt, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-33a, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com