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

[Megnut]

If I was Pawel Gumienny, I believe I would sue the Troconis family each and every time they referred to him as a “suspect”. He was not a suspect at any time. At worst, he may have been a “person of interest”, which ONLY means “a person we want to talk to”. Not at all the same thing as a “suspect”, and certainly not at all the same thing as a “convicted co-conspiritor in the murder of a mother of 5 children”.

And he was offered immunity, which he didn't even need, because he cooperated with LE and he told the truth.

He was an actual victim of FD (of the unholy triad of FD, MT and KM) who tried to use his employment, his immigration status, his loyalty and his decency for their advantage, trying to pull him in unwittingly to do their bidding in the advancement and cover-up of their crime.

He showed tremendous courage and character, in stark contrast to the lacking trio.

MT was no unwitting player. She expected FD to be gone that day, knew she was to man his phone, knew what call to take -- remember her saying, she didn't feel she needed to wrote down the events of the day because she memorized them. Hello. Scripted. Preplanned.

If she were just a sad pawn of FD, had no idea he was off murdering his wife, wearing two ponchos, how come innocent MT hasn't ever been forthcoming with what she was burning that afternoon? No reason to lie about it if she was being used.... just one more proof she was in on it. She knew where FD was, she helped hold the bags, she played keep away with PG's key, and she knew what she was burning. Complicit, start to finish.

14 years is nowhere near enough for what she did, but it is long enough that, when she does get out, she'll be old and grey. And that's just her heart.

JMO

 

[LosAngeles]

I too am more than a bit 'frosted' by the grumpy whiney Atty Frost! What a petulant man child imo.

He honestly appeared no better than the worst behaved toddler imo and it wasn't a good look. How disrespectful imo. Seems like the perfect attorney for MT though.

So many Judges imo would have set him straight about his annoyance of actually having to be in court on a matter that he felt was ridiculous but sadly we saw none of that from Judge Hernandez during the hearing. Do we know if he is representing MT under her new 'indigent' status and so he was annoyed for treking to Court for $150/hr or whatever the State of CT rate is these days? Can't keep the BMW fired up on $150/hr! My recollection was that he was engaged prior to MT being declared 'indigent' so I wonder if this farce is proceeding on Mama Troconis's dime. Mama wasn't in Court that I saw so I do wonder where she might be? Perhaps she took the day off to go interview new attorney's for MT?

To see Atty "Frosty's" ire directed at the camera person just seems to smack of the classic game of pointing the finger at everything other than your sorry client and their even sorrier personal choices! He seemed to be making the preposterous argument that his client is entitled to undertake illegal activity while sitting in a State of CT Courtroom and the real issue is that she was captured doing so on video in error.

I do think that the intent of the Defendant in doing what she did perhaps has some relevance. What I will never forget about the entire event though was MT very intentionally turning her screen with the huge font so that it could be seen by someone or some people imo. MT wasn't sitting in her chair doing personal work imo. This intentional act by the Duchess demonstrated to me at least that she wasn't just reading through the report for personal reasons. NOPE! The intentional act of shifting the computer to her right and actually moving it on the table and also enlarging the font way beyond what would be required for normal personal reading showed the Duchess making a determined decision to BROADCAST the report. Atty Frostys statement about no witness being able to read the report is something I disagree with. I actually did an immediate screen grab at the time and was able to read most of what MT had on her screen. Later video online had the screen blurred. CL also clearly was able to see and read the report to know what it was too. Was MT taunting CL or was she communicating something to Mama Troconis and Audrey Felson/en or perhaps her best buds at NBC CT? Something was going on and so I hope all involved and sitting near are called to testify so that the mystery can be revealed. There is zero doubt imo that MT knew what she was doing and her actions were deliberately undertaken. I do wonder if it all was preplanned as some kind of last ditch effort to make the report public?

Having no faith in the CT Judiciary I do hope there is no way that the report or the page from the report can ever be made public. Sadly Judge Hernandez hasn't imposed a gag order or put demand in place that exhibits be submitted to the Court under seal. I can see MT and Mama T trying to get the discredited report public in any way that they can and if Schoenhorn and Felson/en told MT that this was the only way that it could happen then I can see MT taking the risk. If there is any risk of the report or any part of the report being made public then I would hope the State would plead out the case or the Judge take control to protect the report and its contents and make clear that it cannot be used for any other purposes such as MT appeal etc. Just seems like there is some larger game afoot that I'm simply not seeing but I can see shady operators like Schoenhorn and Felson/en making such a suggestion to MT as it seemed like all their other shady attempts to get the report into evidence failed at trial. What a group of unethical attorneys.

But, iirc we were also treated to a long word salad from another whiney attorney, Audrey Felson or en...can't be bothered to look, on the entire issue of the cameras in Court and some kind of agreement in place with the person responsible for the video feed as to how the video would be shot and presented. I do wonder what this agreement entailed and whether there was specific mention of the two tables where defense and prosecution sat with their computers?

I'm not sure what the presumptions are for privacy in a public space or even a Courtroom. I always assume no privacy and just protect my phone and electronics with privacy screens. What is a bit crazy though is that privacy screens for laptops are widely available and so if any of the attorneys were concerned about privacy then why no just slap a screen on your phone or laptop when sitting in the Courtroom? Why leave any possibility open for public display online live when screens are so easy to add to electronics these days. Just seems like a good choice and easy way to protect yourself and in the case of the Duchess of York, hide your illegal activity too.

I hope the Judge is well aware of the shady history of the MT attorneys as it relates to the report and does more than Judge's Blawie and Randolph to safeguard the discredited report.

Who ever would have thought that a sealed document from Family Court would not remain technically sealed and would not be safeguarded by the legal professionals involved...Judges, State Attorney and the shady MT attorneys....whole thing is unreal imo and so disrespectful not only to the Court but the late Victim and her entire family.

MOO

Such a remedial defense, yet, it’s all he’s got, really. His ridiculous argument is akin to a bystander flipping on their phone because he or she is witnessing a brutal murder or a dog owner beating a their puppy or someone looting a storefront etc…the camera person did not commit the crime. They just filmed it. The person on the film reel committed the crime and the actual film is now a solid, non-refutable witness. The circus is never quite over with this family.

 

[windrower]

I too am more than a bit 'frosted' by the grumpy whiney Atty Frost! What a petulant man child imo.

He honestly appeared no better than the worst behaved toddler imo and it wasn't a good look. How disrespectful imo. Seems like the perfect attorney for MT though.

So many Judges imo would have set him straight about his annoyance of actually having to be in court on a matter that he felt was ridiculous but sadly we saw none of that from Judge Hernandez during the hearing. Do we know if he is representing MT under her new 'indigent' status and so he was annoyed for treking to Court for $150/hr or whatever the State of CT rate is these days? Can't keep the BMW fired up on $150/hr! My recollection was that he was engaged prior to MT being declared 'indigent' so I wonder if this farce is proceeding on Mama Troconis's dime. Mama wasn't in Court that I saw so I do wonder where she might be? Perhaps she took the day off to go interview new attorney's for MT?

To see Atty "Frosty's" ire directed at the camera person just seems to smack of the classic game of pointing the finger at everything other than your sorry client and their even sorrier personal choices! He seemed to be making the preposterous argument that his client is entitled to undertake illegal activity while sitting in a State of CT Courtroom and the real issue is that she was captured doing so on video in error.

I do think that the intent of the Defendant in doing what she did perhaps has some relevance. What I will never forget about the entire event though was MT very intentionally turning her screen with the huge font so that it could be seen by someone or some people imo. MT wasn't sitting in her chair doing personal work imo. This intentional act by the Duchess demonstrated to me at least that she wasn't just reading through the report for personal reasons. NOPE! The intentional act of shifting the computer to her right and actually moving it on the table and also enlarging the font way beyond what would be required for normal personal reading showed the Duchess making a determined decision to BROADCAST the report. Atty Frostys statement about no witness being able to read the report is something I disagree with. I actually did an immediate screen grab at the time and was able to read most of what MT had on her screen. Later video online had the screen blurred. CL also clearly was able to see and read the report to know what it was too. Was MT taunting CL or was she communicating something to Mama Troconis and Audrey Felson/en or perhaps her best buds at NBC CT? Something was going on and so I hope all involved and sitting near are called to testify so that the mystery can be revealed. There is zero doubt imo that MT knew what she was doing and her actions were deliberately undertaken. I do wonder if it all was preplanned as some kind of last ditch effort to make the report public?

Having no faith in the CT Judiciary I do hope there is no way that the report or the page from the report can ever be made public. Sadly Judge Hernandez hasn't imposed a gag order or put demand in place that exhibits be submitted to the Court under seal. I can see MT and Mama T trying to get the discredited report public in any way that they can and if Schoenhorn and Felson/en told MT that this was the only way that it could happen then I can see MT taking the risk. If there is any risk of the report or any part of the report being made public then I would hope the State would plead out the case or the Judge take control to protect the report and its contents and make clear that it cannot be used for any other purposes such as MT appeal etc. Just seems like there is some larger game afoot that I'm simply not seeing but I can see shady operators like Schoenhorn and Felson/en making such a suggestion to MT as it seemed like all their other shady attempts to get the report into evidence failed at trial. What a group of unethical attorneys.

But, iirc we were also treated to a long word salad from another whiney attorney, Audrey Felson or en...can't be bothered to look, on the entire issue of the cameras in Court and some kind of agreement in place with the person responsible for the video feed as to how the video would be shot and presented. I do wonder what this agreement entailed and whether there was specific mention of the two tables where defense and prosecution sat with their computers?

I'm not sure what the presumptions are for privacy in a public space or even a Courtroom. I always assume no privacy and just protect my phone and electronics with privacy screens. What is a bit crazy though is that privacy screens for laptops are widely available and so if any of the attorneys were concerned about privacy then why no just slap a screen on your phone or laptop when sitting in the Courtroom? Why leave any possibility open for public display online live when screens are so easy to add to electronics these days. Just seems like a good choice and easy way to protect yourself and in the case of the Duchess of York, hide your illegal activity too.

I hope the Judge is well aware of the shady history of the MT attorneys as it relates to the report and does more than Judge's Blawie and Randolph to safeguard the discredited report.

Who ever would have thought that a sealed document from Family Court would not remain technically sealed and would not be safeguarded by the legal professionals involved...Judges, State Attorney and the shady MT attorneys....whole thing is unreal imo and so disrespectful not only to the Court but the late Victim and her entire family.

MOO

Okay. What if charges were dropped against MT for the report fiasco during her conspiracy trial?

Then, Mama Farber, via her lawyers, get the report unsealed (or permission to share from it), sets up a media release of the report—or the paraphrased information from the report—along with an explanation of why it was sealed, and why she and her family were protecting it.

(This possibility would probably need to be explored prior to charges being dropped regarding the report.)

I know, impossible to answer without knowing what is in the report.

But removing its power from the Troconis clan would certainly take the wind out of MT’s sails.

I say all this while believing there is nothing exculpatory for MT in the report. Just her fantasizing about somehow “tarnishing” Jennifer in some way.

Marissa Alter
@MarissaAlter

MORE TROCONIS: Michelle Troconis' family spoke briefly after the hearing about their continued push to get her conviction overturned. Troconis filed a habeus corpus petition, alleging violations of her consitutional rights during the Jennifer Dulos investigation.
@News12CT
1:58 PM · Nov 13, 2024

Gag.

Carlos Troconis: "My daughter's wrongful conviction resulted from a violation of her constitutional rights, ineffective counsel & denial of due process. The state failed to perform on the agreement in exchange for her cooperation. Another suspect was granted immunity."
@News12CT
2:01 PM · Nov 13, 2024

Double gag.

Daniela Troconis: "My sister is innocent, and she's paying the price of the crimes of others. Critical evidence to her defense was excluded from the trial, leading to a misinformed jury & an unjust conviction. What you think you know about my sister is a fabrication."
@News12CT
2:03 PM · Nov 13, 2024

Critical evidence? What is it, pray tell. I mean, what are you waiting for?

https://x.com/MarissaAlter/status/1856820089988796889

Marisela Troconis: "Even in incarceration, my sister continues to bring light & her lifelong dedication to serving others by learning Braille to transcribe books for visually impaired children in CT. She remains a caring presence even under difficult circumstances."
@News12CT
2:05 PM · Nov 13, 2024

Light?!?! Triple gag.
https://x.com/MarissaAlter/status/1856820679472996473

BREAKING: Michelle Troconis’ trial in the contempt case has been set for March 11. Troconis didn’t waive her right to a jury trial yet, but her attorney Robert Frost said it’s likely she will go with a bench trial.
@News12CT
11:43 AM · Nov 13, 2024

Troconis is accused of displaying a sealed custody report from the Dulos divorce case on her laptop during her trial in connection to the disappearance and death of Jennifer Dulos.
@News12CT
11:45 AM · Nov 13, 2024

Accused and proven, as per evidence we’ve seen
https://x.com/MarissaAlter/status/1856785381783457877

Troconis appeared in Stamford Superior Court today for a hearing in the case regarding motions filed by the defense. One was to subpoena the videographer that recorded the trial, who lives in Massachusetts. To testify for the defense at trial. That was granted.
@News12CT
11:47 AM · Nov 13, 2024

Great. Another innocent person dragged into the slime-ball pit that is the Troconis family.
https://x.com/MarissaAlter/status/1856786038779162949

Another motion had to do with a request for a “bill of particulars,” and whether the state is alleging the crime was Troconis’ mere possession of the report or her publicly displaying it with purpose of getting that information out.

Yes and yes.

@News12CT
11:50 AM · Nov 13, 2024

Asst. State’s Attorney Elizabeth Moran said the state will be moving forward with both theories at trial.
@News12CT
11:52 AM · Nov 13, 2024

The defense also requested a copy of court orders sealing the report, which Moran said she’ll work on getting to them.
@News12CT
11:55 AM · Nov 13, 2024

If D doesn’t believe the state regarding the court orders to seal, let ‘em go find it themselves. (I know, there’s probably some legality involved.)
https://x.com/MarissaAlter/status/1856787946193785342

Of particular note, defense attorney Robert Frost saying, “I’m surprised this is still being pursued.” His belief is this charge all boils down to the videographer shooting something he was told not to, Troconis’ laptop.
@News12CT
12:00 PM · Nov 13, 2024

Moran disputed that, saying the case isn’t just about that. She pointed out the state was alerted to the report by an audience member in court, not from someone who saw the livestream. It was only when the state investigated that they saw the report on the livestream.
@News12CT
12:06 PM · Nov 13, 2024

_____________________________

ETA: So much for news over the past months that the parties had been negotiating in good faith for a resolution when defense attorney Frost is now requesting a copy of the Court Order sealing the (Herman) report...

Is Frost playing dumb or was this just more arrogance that follows team Troconis that they could get the charges against poor MT dismissed?

I’m not sure they are “playing” dumb.

All of the above is IMO.

 

[pernickety]

I used to think this too but what I have seen is inconsistent video coverage of cases. I wonder sometimes if its that they simply 'forget' to turn on the cameras? But, I've gone looking for video that imo should have been there but wasn't. Not sure why.

The cameras are unmanned and shoot the courtroom from the rear to the front. No audio. Possibly for security purposes? You'd have to make FOI request for footage--of JUD Legal Dept. maybe.

 

[LosAngeles]

The cameras are unmanned and shoot the courtroom from the rear to the front. No audio. Possibly for security purposes? You'd have to make FOI request for footage--of JUD Legal Dept. maybe.

Didn’t someone in the gallery notify the court that this sealed document was in full display? If so, why is the video even an issue? Human eyes (i.e. a live witness or witnesses) alerted the prosecution. In other words, the filming of this illegal document isn’t necessarily relevant (although, certainly helpful as proof of the verbal facts). Non filming witnesses saw this illegal activity and reported it.

 

[pernickety]

Didn’t someone in the gallery notify the court that this sealed document was in full display? If so, why is the video even an issue? Human eyes (i.e. a live witness or witnesses) alerted the prosecution. In other words, the filming of this illegal document isn’t necessarily relevant (although, certainly helpful as proof of the verbal facts). Non filming witnesses saw this illegal activity and reported it.

Right. But if defense is somehow blaming the L&C videographer for filming it, the state can say the usual courtroom camera system would've captured the deed as well.

 

[BJarv]

Okay. What if charges were dropped against MT for the report fiasco during her conspiracy trial?

Then, Mama Farber, via her lawyers, get the report unsealed (or permission to share from it), sets up a media release of the report—or the paraphrased information from the report—along with an explanation of why it was sealed, and why she and her family were protecting it.

(This possibility would probably need to be explored prior to charges being dropped regarding the report.)

I know, impossible to answer without knowing what is in the report.

But removing its power from the Troconis clan would certainly take the wind out of MT’s sails.

I say all this while believing there is nothing exculpatory for MT in the report. Just her fantasizing about somehow “tarnishing” Jennifer in some way.





Gag.


Double gag.



Critical evidence? What is it, pray tell. I mean, what are you waiting for?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1856820089988796889

Light?!?! Triple gag.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1856820679472996473

Accused and proven, as per evidence we’ve seen

https://twitter.com/x/status/1856785381783457877

Great. Another innocent person dragged into the slime-ball pit that is the Troconis family.
x.com

Yes and yes.


If D doesn’t believe the state regarding the court orders to seal, let ‘em go find it themselves. (I know, there’s probably some legality involved.)
x.com


I’m not sure they are “playing” dumb.

All of the above is IMO.

Agree with you on all of the above. It took me 2-3 min to find the original order by Judge Blawie on the discredited report and so Atty Frosty or his paralegal no doubt had long seen all the many orders on the discredited report but just wanted to complain and waste more Court time.

Judge Hernandez usually cuts through BS quickly but he seems inclined to let this silly circus continue in true CT Courtroom fashion. Its wrong and shameful and I wish when MT eventually loses this contempt case and gets the 6 months additional time that she is charged to reimburse the sorry CT taxpayers for this expensive farce. Oh wait. That wont happen because she and her family hid all her assets and cash and she is now recognized as being 'indigent' and qualifies for a public defender courtesy of the sorry taxpayers of CT. Can't make this stuff up but its sadly where we are at in the wonderful world of CT Courts.

Just some basics on the discredited report. I refer to it as discredited for the simple reason that it was never admitted as evidence in Family Court by Judge Heller. The report was submitted to Family Court and was subject to the normal process of litigation by the parties and I believe had taken six months to prepare and was expensive to produce. The report I believe was also to be the cornerstone of the custody situation that was unresolved even after 2 years of litigation in Family Court. The process of admitting the discredited Dr Herman report never finished in Family Court. Dr Herman was on the stand under cross examination by JF Atty Midler iirc when he walked out of the Court and would not defend his report and he NEVER RETURNED. What professional service provider would not defend their work product and evaluation report on the record as they take on the work knowing that in court testimony from them will be required. I could speculate endlessly as to why Dr Herman might have left the Court and never returned. This would be a fun exercise but futile. FWIW though I do think Dr Herman wanted to keep his license to practice and knew that could possibly be in jeopardy if he continued (speculation on my part)! Sadly, it seems Dr Herman still has his license and is practicing the last time I checked a few years ago. Judge Heller deemed the discredited report inadmissible and so tossed it from the case and sealed it.

So, I'm not sure if a report that existed long ago which was never admitted as evidence in Family Court could have any value to MT? FWIW there is the strong chance that the discredited report is simply a tissue of lies that was bought and paid for by FD under the guidance of then GAL Michael Meehan (speculation as it was never litigated to find out the facts of the situation). Thing is though that this is pure speculation as the process of admitting the report as evidence (which would have unraveled the answers to the speculation) was never completed. So, right now imo the discredited report simply represents nothing more than a fantasy or fiction novel and I don't see how this could be exculpatory to MT. MT imo effectively committed contempt of court for a 'fiction novel' and her so called legal professionals Jon Schoenhorn and Audrey Felson/en put their licenses on the line by referencing a discredited report that itself appears valueless as a piece of evidence of anything. Simply makes no sense imo other than what more perfect thing to wave for a client that has no alternative theory of the crime than a valueless report that is sealed by Family Court?

The discredited Herman report imo is the ultimate legal red herring and imo was simply put out there to create doubt in the minds of the jury and justify a hung jury, mistrial or innocent verdict. MT might also want the report contents released for some ego driven reasons to rehabilitate her in the eyes of the jury (good luck with that!). Pretty cynical legal move by Horn and Mini Horn imo but what enrages me is that the entire charade of the discredited report was put in play first by Judge Blawie and allowed to continue by the imo inept Judge Randolph who did zero that I could see to make sure that the report didn't confuse the jury. MT is simply angry that the Jury was smart enough to keep their focus on the evidence of the trial and her well documented actions as a co conspirator in the murder of JF.

I would very much LOVE though to see a deposition on the record of the now thoroughly disgraced (though sadly still working as a GAL in CT) GAL Michael Meehan regarding the discredited Herman Report as it was prepared under his supervision and guidance so far as I'm aware. JF and Atty Midler were working to have GAL Michael Meehan dismissed from Family Court but JF was murdered before this could happen and Judge Heller declared a mistrial shortly after the murder of JF. I would LOVE also to see a deposition of Atty Midler as to his intended line of questioning that resulted in Dr Herman choosing to exit the Courtroom. My guess is that none of this will happen ever and so we are left to speculate about something that as the OP stated has no exculpatory value for MT as evidence. Its a waste of time and I hope that the Appellate Judges see this legal farce for what it is. Who knows what will happen as its CT and sadly Horn and MT know this and so are rolling the dice as to how the appeal will play out.

I have no faith in the CT Courts and so am simply happy to see the Duchess of York remain in prison for as long as possible learning braille and will continue to send her periodic letters asking for her to have compassion for the victims and release the location of the remains of JF.

MOO

 

[Jmoose]

Marissa Alter
@MarissaAlter

MORE TROCONIS: Michelle Troconis' family spoke briefly after the hearing about their continued push to get her conviction overturned. Troconis filed a habeus corpus petition, alleging violations of her consitutional rights during the Jennifer Dulos investigation.
@News12CT
1:58 PM · Nov 13, 2024


Carlos Troconis: "My daughter's wrongful conviction resulted from a violation of her constitutional rights, ineffective counsel & denial of due process. The state failed to perform on the agreement in exchange for her cooperation. Another suspect was granted immunity."
@News12CT
2:01 PM · Nov 13, 2024

Daniela Troconis: "My sister is innocent, and she's paying the price of the crimes of others. Critical evidence to her defense was excluded from the trial, leading to a misinformed jury & an unjust conviction. What you think you know about my sister is a fabrication."
@News12CT
2:03 PM · Nov 13, 2024

Marisela Troconis: "Even in incarceration, my sister continues to bring light & her lifelong dedication to serving others by learning Braille to transcribe books for visually impaired children in CT. She remains a caring presence even under difficult circumstances."
@News12CT
2:05 PM · Nov 13, 2024

BREAKING: Michelle Troconis’ trial in the contempt case has been set for March 11. Troconis didn’t waive her right to a jury trial yet, but her attorney Robert Frost said it’s likely she will go with a bench trial.
@News12CT
11:43 AM · Nov 13, 2024

Troconis is accused of displaying a sealed custody report from the Dulos divorce case on her laptop during her trial in connection to the disappearance and death of Jennifer Dulos.
@News12CT
11:45 AM · Nov 13, 2024

Troconis appeared in Stamford Superior Court today for a hearing in the case regarding motions filed by the defense. One was to subpoena the videographer that recorded the trial, who lives in Massachusetts. To testify for the defense at trial. That was granted.
@News12CT
11:47 AM · Nov 13, 2024

Another motion had to do with a request for a “bill of particulars,” and whether the state is alleging the crime was Troconis’ mere possession of the report or her publicly displaying it with purpose of getting that information out.
@News12CT
11:50 AM · Nov 13, 2024

Asst. State’s Attorney Elizabeth Moran said the state will be moving forward with both theories at trial.
@News12CT
11:52 AM · Nov 13, 2024

The defense also requested a copy of court orders sealing the report, which Moran said she’ll work on getting to them.
@News12CT
11:55 AM · Nov 13, 2024

Of particular note, defense attorney Robert Frost saying, “I’m surprised this is still being pursued.” His belief is this charge all boils down to the videographer shooting something he was told not to, Troconis’ laptop.
@News12CT
12:00 PM · Nov 13, 2024

Moran disputed that, saying the case isn’t just about that. She pointed out the state was alerted to the report by an audience member in court, not from someone who saw the livestream. It was only when the state investigated that they saw the report on the livestream.
@News12CT
12:06 PM · Nov 13, 2024

_____________________________

ETA: So much for news over the past months that the parties had been negotiating in good faith for a resolution when defense attorney Frost is now requesting a copy of the Court Order sealing the (Herman) report...

Is Frost playing dumb or was this just more arrogance that follows team Troconis that they could get the charges against poor MT dismissed?

Absolutely hilarious that MT’swsister thinks her sister is learning braille, so that she can transcribe books for blind children. Don’t publishers do that? They don’t need prisoners to learn braille so they can do it! These people are insane!

 

[BJarv]

Absolutely hilarious that MT’swsister thinks her sister is learning braille, so that she can transcribe books for blind children. Don’t publishers do that? They don’t need prisoners to learn braille so they can do it! These people are insane!

Yes! The entire family need a platoon of fact checkers! Good think WS exists to keep the mis and disinformation from the clown brigade under control!

 

[Mysticeilis]

“Learning Braille “?!!!! You can’t make this up!!

I have three questions for mt:

1. What Braille language are you learning?
2. Is the State of CT paying for a Braille interpreter if the Braille you’re learning isn’t of your native tongue?
3. Where is Jennifer????????????

 

[Jmoose]

“Learning Braille “?!!!! You can’t make this up!!

I have three questions for mt:

1. What Braille language are you learning?
2. Is the State of CT paying for a Braille interpreter if the Braille you’re learning isn’t of your native tongue?
3. Where is Jennifer????????????

Good question!!!

 

[Mysticeilis]

Oh, Jennifer - where are you???!!!

 

[citygirl]

A belated Happy Thanksgiving to all!

 

[LosAngeles]

76 Days until her next court date . . .

Pending Case Detail

Information is accurate as of December 05, 2024 05:13 AM

Defendant Information [td] ​ ​

Docket Information Docket No: FST -CR24-0253792-T Arresting Agency: STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STAMFORD Companion: Program: Arrest Date: 3/1/2024 Court: Stamford JD Bond Amount: $100 (This case only) Bond Type: Set Miscellaneous: (Not Released From Custody)

Activity: Awaiting Disposition Next Court Date: [td] 2/19/2025 2:00 PM​

Current Charges Statute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding 51-33a CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT [td] B​

Last, First: TROCONIS MICHELLE	Represented By: 433115 FROST BUSSERT LLC
Birth Year: 1974	Times on the Docket: 5

​

[/td]

​

[/td]

2/15/2024

Not Guilty

​

[td]

Misdemeanor​

[/td]​

[td]

1​

[/td]​

[/td]

 

[MG55]

Is there a court date next week 12/23/24?

Scheduled Court Dates as of 12/16/2024
TSR-CV24-5001865-S - TROCONIS, MICHELLE #433612 v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION​

 

[LosAngeles]

[td width="760px"] Supreme and Appellate Court​ ​

[td width="75px"] AC 47734​

[td]Appeal Case Information

[td]Cross Appeal/Amended Appeal

[td]Trial Court Case Information

[td]Party/Attorney or Self-Represented Information

[td]Transcripts and Exhibits

[td]Preliminary Papers

[td]Briefs and Prepared Record

[td]Case Activity

​

[td width="760px"]

Case Detail​

[/td]​

[td]

Supreme & Appellate Court Look-up Home

|

Printer Friendly Version

|

New Search

|

Judicial Home Page

|

[/td]​

[td width="760px"]

Case Information​

[/td]​

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHELLE TROCONIS

​

[td width="185px"]Status: Brief Due[/td]

[/td]

[td width="245px"]To receive an email when there is activity on this case, click here.[/td] [td width="140px"]Date Filed:[/td][td width="245px"]06/20/2024[/td][td width="113px"]Response to Docket Due Date:[/td] [td width="140px"]Appeal By:[/td][td width="245px"]Plaintiff[/td][td width="113px"]Disposition Method:[/td] [td width="140px"]Argued Date:[/td][td width="245px"] [/td][td width="113px"]Disposition Date:[/td] [td width="140px"]Submitted on Briefs Date:[/td][td width="113px"]Cite:[/td] [td width="140px"]Panel:[/td][td width="113px"]Petition(s) For Certification:[/td]

[/td]

[/td]

[td width="94px"]Docket Number:[/td] [td width="94px"]Judgment For:[/td][td width="92px"]Court:[/td] [td width="94px"]Trial Judge(s):[/td][td width="92px"]Judgment Date:[/td] [td width="92px"]Case Type:[/td]

[/td]

[th]p[/th] [th] Trial Court Party Class​ [/th][th] Appeal Party Class​ [/th]​ [td] STATE OF CONNECTICUT [td] Juris: 401795​ CHIEF STATE'S ATTORNEY-APPELLATE ​

[/td]
[td]

Plaintiff​

[/td][td]

Appellant​

[/td]​

[td]

MICHELLE TROCONIS

[td] Juris: 401721​

CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER-LSU-HARTFORD

​

[/td]

[/td]
[td]

Defendant​

[/td][td]

Appellee​

[/td]​

[/td]

[/td]

[td width="380px"]

Exhibits Received By Court:​

[/td]​

[/td]

[th width="86px"] Party Name​ [/th][th width="75px"] Preliminary Statement of the Issues​ [/th][th width="75px"] Designation of the Proposed Contents of the Clerk Appendix​ [/th][th width="86px"] Certificate re Transcript Received​ [/th][th width="75px"] Docketing Statement​ [/th][th width="60px"] PAC Statement​ [/th][th width="75px"] Constitutionality Notice​ [/th][th width="60px"] Sealing Notice​ [/th][th width="70px"] Certificate of Interested Entities​ [/th]​ [td width="86px"] STATE OF CONNECTICUT​

​

[td width="75px"]

06/26/2024​

[/td][td width="75px"]

06/26/2024​

[/td][td width="86px"]

06/26/2024​

[/td][td width="75px"]

06/26/2024​

[/td][td width="60px"]

​

[/td][td width="75px"]

​

[/td][td width="60px"]

​

[/td][td width="70px"]

​

[/td]​

[/td]

[/td]

Original Due Date Due Date [th]p[/th] [th] Type​ [/th]​ [th] Date Filed​ [/th]​ [td] STATE OF CONNECTICUT Appellant​

[td width="380px"]

Record Filed:​

[/td]​

​

[td]

Brief​

[/td][td]

12/19/2024​

[/td][td]

02/10/2025​

[/td][td]

​

[/td]​

[/td]

[/td]

[th] Activity​ [/th]​ [th] Number​ [/th][th] Date filed​ [/th]​ [th width="25.8512%"] Initiated By​ [/th][th width="12.5699%"] Description​ [/th][th] Action​ [/th]​ [th] Action Date​ [/th][th] Notice Date​ [/th]​ [td width="175px"] MOTION FOR EXTENSION​

AC 2431574

12/17/2024

​

[td width="25.8512%"]

STATE OF CONNECTICUT​

[/td][td width="12.5699%"]

Appellant Brief
Extension Date:02/10/2025
​

[/td][td]

Granted​

[/td]​

[td]

12/17/2024​

[/td][td]

12/17/2024​

[/td]​

[/td]

[/td]

[/td]

 

[LosAngeles]

Oh, boy...that didn't "paste" very well. It's an Appellant Brief Extension that was filed on 12/17 and granted. The Extention Date is 02/10/2025.

 

[Niner]

Is there a court date next week 12/23/24?

Scheduled Court Dates as of 12/16/2024
TSR-CV24-5001865-S - TROCONIS, MICHELLE #433612 v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION​

Not that I know of - I have 2/19/25 as her next hearing for contempt.

 

[Seattle1]

Not that I know of - I have 2/19/25 as her next hearing for contempt.

Two completely different cases. One is the active charge for contempt of court from Feb 2024 and the other is the appeal of her Murder conviction and sentence.

Case quoted by OP was for the Appellate Court -- unfortunately, it was not linked.

 

[Seattle1]

Oh, boy...that didn't "paste" very well. It's an Appellant Brief Extension that was filed on 12/17 and granted. The Extention Date is 02/10/2025.

@WS Admin -- please see post #616.

Are you still addressing/troubleshooting this issue regarding posts copied directly from official state and federal court sites which display without issue in draft but distort once user publishes and/or hits "post reply." Thanks for any update.