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

[pernickety]

Yes @pernickety I recall that too.

The other IMO disturbing aspect of this entire sealed ‘report’ display by the now convicted defendant MT and having had the report - til now, AFAIK no attorneys involved have been held to account for this?

Have the attorneys even been questioned about their involvement? JS, AF, NP, and any others involved then or now? SMH. MOO

It's been reported since this hearing (don't remember where I read it), that the state didn't offer to settle the contempt charge with MT--despite the judiciary's wishes, as I see it. (Was it Judge Alex Rodriguez who said Try to settle it?). So, IMO, the Judicial Branch is hoping to cover up the involvement of any attorneys--or so-called "Officers of the Court"--while the State's Atty's office is bent on going to trial. Maybe MT also prefers a trial to a settlement. Then IMO, the State's Atty's office has their due diligence cut out for them--paramount is to find out how the report got on MT's computer and when it got there. If it got there before FD's death, then it was most likely from him, whether he sent it to her electronically or whether he gave her a hard copy and she made a pdf (she could've done this after his death too, from the hard copy).

Or did a copy get onto her computer after she came to be represented by JS and AF?

Or did someone send her an email with a copy of the report attached while she was sitting there in court at her trial?

 

[Jmoose]

It's been reported since this hearing (don't remember where I read it), that the state didn't offer to settle the contempt charge with MT--despite the judiciary's wishes, as I see it. (Was it Judge Alex Rodriguez who said Try to settle it?). So, IMO, the Judicial Branch is hoping to cover up the involvement of any attorneys--or so-called "Officers of the Court"--while the State's Atty's office is bent on going to trial. Maybe MT also prefers a trial to a settlement. Then IMO, the State's Atty's office has their due diligence cut out for them--paramount is to find out how the report got on MT's computer and when it got there. If it got there before FD's death, then it was most likely from him, whether he sent it to her electronically or whether he gave her a hard copy and she made a pdf (she could've done this after his death too, from the hard copy).

Or did a copy get onto her computer after she came to be represented by JS and AF?

Or did someone send her an email with a copy of the report attached while she was sitting there in court at her trial?

I think Michi’s had that report for a long time-possibly from FD. And I think she emailed it to everyone in her family, and her friend Petu, who patted her bag while she was on the stand, like she’d printed a copy of it and brought it with her. What I really want to know, though, is why she had a laptop with her during the trial, and why her lawyers weren’t imploring her to pay attention to the court proceedings, instead of fiddling around on the laptop. It’s almost like they knew that she would do this, and approved of it. Is there any way of knowing forensically if she disbursed the report around to people, and when she did it (in spite of her lawyer insisting that she was not bound by the judge’s instruction not to share it)?

 

[pernickety]

I think Michi’s had that report for a long time-possibly from FD. And I think she emailed it to everyone in her family, and her friend Petu, who patted her bag while she was on the stand, like she’d printed a copy of it and brought it with her. What I really want to know, though, is why she had a laptop with her during the trial, and why her lawyers weren’t imploring her to pay attention to the court proceedings, instead of fiddling around on the laptop. It’s almost like they knew that she would do this, and approved of it. Is there any way of knowing forensically if she disbursed the report around to people, and when she did it (in spite of her lawyer insisting that she was not bound by the judge’s instruction not to share it)?

They could call Petu and Mami to the stand to testify whether MT sent/gave them a copy of the report. They could also call attorneys JS, AF and NP to the stand to testify as to whether they know how she got it. AF and JS can't cite atty/client privilege because it doesn't apply to illegal doings.

 

[Jmoose]

They could call Petu and Mami to the stand to testify whether MT sent/gave them a copy of the report. They could also call attorneys JS, AF and NP to the stand to testify as to whether they know how she got it. AF and JS can't cite atty/client privilege because it doesn't apply to illegal doings.

Those two would both lie-I wonder if the State of CT have the cojones to put them in jail, when they do?

 

[sassyblue]

Those two would both lie-I wonder if the State of CT have the cojones to put them in jail, when they do?

No the state of CT doesn't have the cojones to do much about anything as I see it.

 

[pernickety]

Those two would both lie-I wonder if the State of CT have the cojones to put them in jail, when they do?

I forgot GAL Mehan. Call him to testify whether he gave a copy of the report to Fotis and, if so, when. Did Mehan give a copy of the report to MT> Did he know if Fotis did so?

 

[Jmoose]

I forgot GAL Mehan. Call him to testify whether he gave a copy of the report to Fotis and, if so, when. Did Mehan give a copy of the report to MT> Did he know if Fotis did so?

I’d like to know what Meehan has to say but I bet it would amount to him saying that Dulos stole it (which he may have done), but I could also see him giving it to Dulos-you know, boys sticking together and all that.

 

[Tink56]

I think Michi’s had that report for a long time-possibly from FD. And I think she emailed it to everyone in her family, and her friend Petu, who patted her bag while she was on the stand, like she’d printed a copy of it and brought it with her. What I really want to know, though, is why she had a laptop with her during the trial, and why her lawyers weren’t imploring her to pay attention to the court proceedings, instead of fiddling around on the laptop. It’s almost like they knew that she would do this, and approved of it. Is there any way of knowing forensically if she disbursed the report around to people, and when she did it (in spite of her lawyer insisting that she was not bound by the judge’s instruction not to share it)?

Feel free to correct my recollection, but if I recall the day the copy of the family report was visible of MT's laptop was also the day she left for lunch with a visible packet with, I believe, ABC News on it. Some of the networks were vying for interviews with the entire MT clan, especially MT.

That afternoon, after lunch, was when MT displayed the report. It would be interesting to know who in the gallery were sitting near Mami. Mami already knew what was in the report. Who did MT want to see that she had access to the family study and was willing to share its contents?

I may have confused the times, but I think these things happened on the same day. Did anyone on the forum attend that day?

 

[pernickety]

Feel free to correct my recollection, but if I recall the day the copy of the family report was visible of MT's laptop was also the day she left for lunch with a visible packet with, I believe, ABC News on it. Some of the networks were vying for interviews with the entire MT clan, especially MT.

I thought it was NBC? Maybe looking for a Dateline interview? Could it be what Atty Felsen was talking to her about when MT became more and more animated and smiling?

 

[Jmoose]

Feel free to correct my recollection, but if I recall the day the copy of the family report was visible of MT's laptop was also the day she left for lunch with a visible packet with, I believe, ABC News on it. Some of the networks were vying for interviews with the entire MT clan, especially MT.

That afternoon, after lunch, was when MT displayed the report. It would be interesting to know who in the gallery were sitting near Mami. Mami already knew what was in the report. Who did MT want to see that she had access to the family study and was willing to share its contents?

I may have confused the times, but I think these things happened on the same day. Did anyone on the forum attend that day?

I can’t remember if it was the same day or not

 

[sds71]

Why hasn’t Kent Mawhinney gone to trial yet in Jennifer Farber Dulos disappearance case?

What is happening in the case of Kent Mawhinney? He’s the former attorney charged with conspiracy to commit murder in the case of Jennifer Farber Dulos.

www.wfsb.com

 

[Seattle1]

Why hasn’t Kent Mawhinney gone to trial yet in Jennifer Farber Dulos disappearance case?

What is happening in the case of Kent Mawhinney? He’s the former attorney charged with conspiracy to commit murder in the case of Jennifer Farber Dulos.

www.wfsb.com

Seems nobody addressed the elephant in the room -- the later meeting between KM and the DA's office. IMO, that's where the answer lies.

 

[Jmoose]

Seems nobody addressed the elephant in the room -- the later meeting between KM and the DA's office. IMO, that's where the answer lies.

Can you expand? What do you think went down between KM and the DA’s office? I don’t think he served up anything that helped convict MT, or helped find Jennifer’s body…so was it a conversation that amounted to KM saying he knows stuff about members of the CT judicial system? If so, I wonder why he is still wearing his anklet? Or is he…

 

[Seattle1]

Can you expand? What do you think went down between KM and the DA’s office? I don’t think he served up anything that helped convict MT, or helped find Jennifer’s body…so was it a conversation that amounted to KM saying he knows stuff about members of the CT judicial system? If so, I wonder why he is still wearing his anklet? Or is he…

First, we know that KM had been sitting in jail since his arrest on Jan 7, 2020-- unable to post a $2M bond, and nearly a year later, after talking to the DA, he had another bond hearing where his bond was reduced to a total of $246,000 [$50,000 in cash bond and $196,000 in real estate bond], and the State did not object to the conditions. At the time, he was also granted permission to travel to visit his ailing father in Florida. It was then confirmed that KM was a cooperating State witness.

No, KM did not produce Jennifer's body but I believe he likely shared what he knew about Fotis and his contacts-- here and abroad. (I don't think Fotis was foolish enough to share the location of Jennifer's remains with anybody-- especially not here in the US).

And had MT not done such a great job convicting herself, I believe the State would have used KM as a witness in her trial-- albeit KM's strength has always been what he knew about Fotis-- the mastermind, and not MT.

We already knew that JLS planned to attack KM viciously for any testimony he offered about MT. MT's appeal is based on her belief that she was convicted for what Fotis did and not for her own actions. Except MT doesn't get that she is the poster woman of a conspirator! In this case, a conspirator for murder.

And yes, per the latest link quoted above, KM is still wearing his ankle bracelet.

IMO, the parties remain quiet here because one day we will learn the State made a deal with KM to testify, and conspiracy charges against him will quietly be dismissed. KM's defense will argue it's not KM's fault that the state did not call him. JMO

Court reduces bond for Kent Mawhinney in Jennifer Dulos case

Mawhinney has been in custody since Jan. 7, when he was charged with conspiracy to commit murder in Jennifer Dulos’ death.

brooklyn.news12.com

 

[pernickety]

I can’t remember if it was the same day or not

https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/alex-jones-norm-pattis-ct-suspension-sandy-hook-20219206.php

"The Sandy Hook families' “[highly] sensitive and [confidential] information, which should have been safeguarded and which was also protected by the court order, was carelessly passed around from one unauthorized person to another, without regard for the protective order, and with no effort [by Pattis] to safeguard the ... (families’) sensitive, confidential documents,” Wilson wrote in her decision. “

Could Pattis have also been careless with passing around the protected report on Jennifer?

 

[Jmoose]

https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/alex-jones-norm-pattis-ct-suspension-sandy-hook-20219206.php

"The Sandy Hook families' “[highly] sensitive and [confidential] information, which should have been safeguarded and which was also protected by the court order, was carelessly passed around from one unauthorized person to another, without regard for the protective order, and with no effort [by Pattis] to safeguard the ... (families’) sensitive, confidential documents,” Wilson wrote in her decision. “

Could Pattis have also been careless with passing around the protected report on Jennifer?

Certainly. In my opinion, he is a very sloppy attorney. He is no Joe Tacopina, in my opinion. That guy keeps it all together.

 

[Jmoose]

First, we know that KM had been sitting in jail since his arrest on Jan 7, 2020-- unable to post a $2M bond, and nearly a year later, after talking to the DA, he had another bond hearing where his bond was reduced to a total of $246,000 [$50,000 in cash bond and $196,000 in real estate bond], and the State did not object to the conditions. At the time, he was also granted permission to travel to visit his ailing father in Florida. It was then confirmed that KM was a cooperating State witness.

No, KM did not produce Jennifer's body but I believe he likely shared what he knew about Fotis and his contacts-- here and abroad. (I don't think Fotis was foolish enough to share the location of Jennifer's remains with anybody-- especially not here in the US).

And had MT not done such a great job convicting herself, I believe the State would have used KM as a witness in her trial-- albeit KM's strength has always been what he knew about Fotis-- the mastermind, and not MT.

We already knew that JLS planned to attack KM viciously for any testimony he offered about MT. MT's appeal is based on her belief that she was convicted for what Fotis did and not for her own actions. Except MT doesn't get that she is the poster woman of a conspirator! In this case, a conspirator for murder.

And yes, per the latest link quoted above, KM is still wearing his ankle bracelet.

IMO, the parties remain quiet here because one day we will learn the State made a deal with KM to testify, and conspiracy charges against him will quietly be dismissed. KM's defense will argue it's not KM's fault that the state did not call him. JMO

Court reduces bond for Kent Mawhinney in Jennifer Dulos case

Mawhinney has been in custody since Jan. 7, when he was charged with conspiracy to commit murder in Jennifer Dulos’ death.

brooklyn.news12.com

I agree with all of this-especially the part where you said you don’t think FD told anyone what he did with Jennifer’s remains. And you are right-they likely made a deal with KM to testify, but didn’t need him to, since MT did such a nice job of convicting herself without KM’s help. And since a deal’s a deal, he very likely will not be going to trial. How long do you think before he gets the ankle monitor removed? And I wonder how long it’ll take before he starts stalking his ex-wife again?

 

[LosAngeles]

Does anyone happen to know the status of the MT's appeal? I recall that they asked for an extension to file the appellant’s brief until May, but I’m not sure if that was granted or not. And if it was not granted, what happens if they miss the due date (February, 2025)? TYIA

 

[Niner]

Does anyone happen to know the status of the MT's appeal? I recall that they asked for an extension to file the appellant’s brief until May, but I’m not sure if that was granted or not. And if it was not granted, what happens if they miss the due date (February, 2025)? TYIA

This is the last entry for the appeal that I have...

1/16/25 Docket update: Troconis' attorney public defender Pamela Nagy filed an unopposed Motion for Permission to File a Late Statement of Alternative Grounds. The trial court (Randolph, J.) vacated one of the convictions for conspiracy to commit tampering & the state filed this appeal on 6/20/24 & the preliminary statement of issues on 6/26/24. The Motion argued there was good cause for the late filing because defendant was not represented by Nagy's office when the deadline occurred & the Motion was granted by Order dated 1/16/25. See post #642, page 3, thread #31 for more info.

 

[Seattle1]

Does anyone happen to know the status of the MT's appeal? I recall that they asked for an extension to file the appellant’s brief until May, but I’m not sure if that was granted or not. And if it was not granted, what happens if they miss the due date (February, 2025)? TYIA

New Activity in the Appellate Court. AND it also appears somebody feels they were double crossed by the State -- drawing a line in the sand!

2/7/25 -- State of CT filed another Motion for Extension of Time from 2/10/25 to 5/9/25 to file the "Appellant's Brief"--adding the opposing counsel 'consented' the State's request.

The reason for which the extension was sought per the State included the following:

The instant appeal is a State's appeal related to the same proceedings at issue in the defendant's appeal in State v. Troconis, A. C. 47877. In the defendant's appeal, the defendant has requested an extension of time to file her appellant's brief until May 10, 2025. I am requesting the extension in the instant case so that the State's briefing in both the defendant's and the state's appeals may be completed in tandem.

*Drafting of the brief has not yet begun. Work will begin in earnest after the filing of the defendant's brief in A. C. 47877.*

The defense especially took offense to the *paragraph* above, and responded by filing a five page 'Motion for Review of Order Granting the State's Extension Motion for Extension of Time' on 2/10/25.

The jest of MT's Motion is they did not originally object to the state's motion being granted because the state represented that it wanted to keep the state's appeal in this case on track with MT's appeal in AC 47877, which defendant understood to mean that the state's appellate brief in its appeal would be filed at the same time as the defendant's appellate brief in her appeal (i.e., both appeals argued on the same day).

And because it now appears that the state does not intend to assign an attorney to begin working on its appeal until defendant files her brief in the separate appeal, defendant asks this Court to modify or vacate the order of February 7, or else order that the state's appeal be dismissed should its brief not be filed by May 9, 2025.

In its motion filed on February 7, it stated "I am requesting the extension in the instant case so that the State's briefing in both the defendant's and the state's appeals may be completed in tandem." However, at the bottom of the motion it stated that drafting of the brief had not begun and would not begin until after the filing of defendant's brief in A. C. 4 7877. Upon seeing that language, undersigned counsel contacted Attorney Tim Costello, and he confirmed that is what he plans to do, so that the state files its brief in both cases at the same time.

Undersigned counsel would not have consented to the state's motion for extension of time had I realized that was what the state planned to do. Defendant strongly objects to the state waiting in its own appeal to not even begin working on it until after defendant's brief is filed in a totally separate appeal. Not only is this inefficient because defendant will not be able to respond to the state's brief in this case immediately upon filing her brief in A. C. 47877, but it will extend the briefing by several months, when there is no reason to do so. Such a delay prejudices defendant because she is incarcerated. Furthermore, the state has an obligation to prosecute its appeal with diligence, and in fact, is subject to having its appeal dismissed if it fails to do so. Conn. Prac. Book§ 85-1. For these reasons, defendant requests that this Court modify or vacate its order of February 7 granting the state an extension until May 9 to file its brief. Alternatively, she requests that if the state does not file its brief by May 9, that this Court dismiss the state's appeal for failing to prosecute it with due diligence.

Supreme/Appellate Case Look-up

Confirming MT's extension was granted to 5/10/25, and the State's extension was granted to 5/9/25, per the Motions noted above.

However, on 2/19/25, the State responded to MT's Motion for Review, requesting the Court modify or vacate the Order granting the State's extension to 5/9/25, with State’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Review of Granting of State’s Motion for Extension of Time:


Finally, the defendant’s request that this Court, in substance, impose a final deadline of May 9, 2025, with no further extensions, for the State to file its brief in the State’s appeal is unwarranted. As discussed above, the State’s structure of its briefing in the State’s appeal was designed to best manage its resources in this and the defendant’s appeal, as well as to permit briefing on other pending appeals to proceed in the Appellate Bureau. Because of the parallel appeals pending in the State’s and defendant’s appeals, and the exceedingly large records in those appeals, a more unique and liberal briefing schedule is appropriate here.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the State respectfully requests that this Court grant the defendant’s motion for review, but deny the relief requested.

AC 243465

3/14/2025

[td width="175px"]

ORDER
​

[/td]​

[td width="175px"]

​

[/td]
[td width="165px"]

Clerk uploaded Order
​

[/td][td]

Filed​

[/td]​

Per the 3/14/25 Order, it appears the Court intends to stand firm with the 5/10/25 extended due date for MT's Brief and 5/9/25 for the State per the 2/7/25 Order. (See 2/7/25 Motion below).

At this time, I believe we are waiting on the Court's response to the State's 2/19/25 opposition to MT's request. If the Court does not reconsider, this will indeed throw a wrench in any hope the State had at being able to squeeze out a few more months or up to August 2025 to file its Brief (i.e., the State advised they had not started drafting the brief and would begin in earnest after the filing of the defendant's brief in A.C. 47877).

Supreme/Appellate Case Look-up