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

[Jmoose]

It's a shame MT couldn't see what we saw, and also what the jurors saw from her police interviews! MT spent the majority of her time with LE baiting her hook and fishing for what info LE might share with her-- so she could feed this back to Fd at her first opportunity! What a FIDIOT. And this is what got her convicted and sent to prison! No, MT-- you were not the smartest person in the room. MOO

This is exactly what she did, and now she is reaping the rewards of her work. I still can’t get past her visit to NYC to try and find out what was in Hilliard Farber’s will and trust documents.

 

[Tink56]

The Sept 2024 habeas petition (civil case) linked above is classic MT -- it's packed full of lies, IMO.

To be fair, I couldn't get past the first paragraph where she describes what a great mother she is, and how she first met Fotis in Florida in April 2016 at the Ski Club when Fotis was with his girlfriend, Elena G....

The content here wasn't allowed at Trial, and not allowed in her appeal.

The content had been rejected until 8/8/25 when the Court recognized that MT/petitioner had removed the noncognizable Fifth Amendment allegations from count one, in accordance with the court’s April 10, 2025 ruling.

Although the petitioner appears to have reinserted some of these allegations into the Facts and Procedural History section of the revised petition, the relevance of these reinserted allegations remains subject to determination at trial. Thus, in attempting to prove the Fifth Amendment violation alleged in Count one, the petitioner remains limited to the specifications alleged in paragraph 115 (A) - (C) and whatever evidence that proof necessarily entails.

In other words, the Jan 2026 trial is a civil court matter re. violation of her Fifth Amendment rights. Per the 8/8/25 Order cited above, MT reinserted allegations of questionable relevance and in violation but will be limited at trial to the specifications alleged in the defined paragraph, and whatever evidence that proof necessarily entails.

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30643344

I made the mistake of reading the entire petition. MT is still very confused about fact and fiction. I wish I had all the information at hand to refute the ridiculous statements she makes about her sainted parenting. She claimed, BTW, that the condo she owned in Miami at the time she met Fotis was purchased by her and her husband. I think that's one of the first times she acknowledged she had a husband when she met Fotis.

The rest of the stinkers in the petition won't matter as Seattle says, but she makes a good attempt to throw Bowman and Coangelo under the proverbial bus SMH...she also makes her best attempt to reveal what she thinks is in the family evaluation by stating that FD told her what was in the report. GAG!

Wishing the CT judicial system shuts this down, but my fears align with JMoose's in that MT'll probably go free, due to the time and expense she has caused the system, and her insistence that the family report be admitted to court, since each time she sounds off about this causes pain for Jennifer's children and family.

Hope karma prevails in the end!

 

[Seattle1]

I made the mistake of reading the entire petition. MT is still very confused about fact and fiction. I wish I had all the information at hand to refute the ridiculous statements she makes about her sainted parenting. She claimed, BTW, that the condo she owned in Miami at the time she met Fotis was purchased by her and her husband. I think that's one of the first times she acknowledged she had a husband when she met Fotis.

^^rsbm

Thanks for your confirming post @Tink56 -- I didn't think reading the 20+ page petition last Sept would be good for my health, and won't bother today because it's still infuriating to think MT has no factual basis to argue from but will instead use the US Constitution--more specifically the Fifth Amendment, to attempt free herself from prison!

Playing the immigrant, deprived of a translator, and due process... yeah, right...

 

[Jmoose]

^^rsbm

Thanks for your confirming post @Tink56 -- I didn't think reading the 20+ page petition last Sept would be good for my health, and won't bother today because it's still infuriating to think MT has no factual basis to argue from but will instead use the US Constitution--more specifically the Fifth Amendment, to attempt free herself from prison!

Playing the immigrant, deprived of a translator, and due process... yeah, right...

I couldn’t make myself read it, either, and it isn’t typical for me, because I want to know everything. I knew it would infuriate me, so I didn’t.

 

[LosAngeles]

A judge has ruled that Michelle Troconis, who is serving more than 14 years in prison in the death and disappearance of Jennifer Dulos, can take to trial the habeas challenge of her conviction on claims her first attorney was ineffective.

In the ruling issued Aug. 8, state Superior Court Judge Carl Schuman denied the state's motion filed a month before to have Troconis' habeas challenge to her conviction thrown out, paving the way for the challenge to move to a trial, which is scheduled for January. Troconis in the habeas challenge is seeking a release from prison and to have the conviction overturned.

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/jennifer-dulos-michelle-troconis-challenge-trial-20817334.php?fbclid=IwY2xjawMLRUBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFVc0xEVlZtSWlERFhNeEdVAR5OR2s--aY4x1vcKKHFI-cHQIRNkDF5tmUaiQhfe4-ckayth1K0yCMdFyQpkA_aem_Fo358zMtikSP-H4fVNneng

So, if this flies, the State of Connecticut is basically allowing implicit immunity to an uncooperative and dishonest (and GUILTY) defendant. Can you imagine the thousands of inmates that will jump up and cheer if this actually happens?

 

[Jmoose]

I made the mistake of reading the entire petition. MT is still very confused about fact and fiction. I wish I had all the information at hand to refute the ridiculous statements she makes about her sainted parenting. She claimed, BTW, that the condo she owned in Miami at the time she met Fotis was purchased by her and her husband. I think that's one of the first times she acknowledged she had a husband when she met Fotis.

The rest of the stinkers in the petition won't matter as Seattle says, but she makes a good attempt to throw Bowman and Coangelo under the proverbial bus SMH...she also makes her best attempt to reveal what she thinks is in the family evaluation by stating that FD told her what was in the report. GAG!

Wishing the CT judicial system shuts this down, but my fears align with JMoose's in that MT'll probably go free, due to the time and expense she has caused the system, and her insistence that the family report be admitted to court, since each time she sounds off about this causes pain for Jennifer's children and family.

Hope karma prevails in the end!

Tink-thank you for taking the bullet for the rest of us, and reading the whole thing; I just cannot, because I know my head will explode.

 

[Seattle1]

So, if this flies, the State of Connecticut is basically allowing implicit immunity to an uncooperative and dishonest (and GUILTY) defendant. Can you imagine the thousands of inmates that will jump up and cheer if this actually happens?

Let's just hope that MT stays true to form, and come January 2026, when given an inch, tries to take three yards, and gets summarily rejected!

IMO, her arguments didn't belong here during the trial, and I don't think anything has changed. MT needs to find her way to federal court to complain about how she was denied her civil rights under the US Constitution!

Perhaps the feds can better demonstrate to her how she was represented by counsel during questioning, and as an educated woman, never once said she did not understand the questions or the discussion being communicated in English. Never once did she ask to end the questioning. Nope-- she was too busy fishing on behalf of Fotis! JMO

 

[pernickety]

she was too busy fishing on behalf of Fotis! JMO

IMO Fotis also wanted MT to persuade LE into the theory that JFD staged her own kidnapping so she could run away. AIR, on the video MT asks Atty Bowman if she should tell LE about "the report", and he says No. IMO that's the main reason she and Bowman parted.

 

[Jmoose]

IMO Fotis also wanted MT to persuade LE into the theory that JFD staged her own kidnapping so she could run away. AIR, on the video MT asks Atty Bowman if she should tell LE about "the report", and he says No. IMO that's the main reason she and Bowman parted.

And Bowman said “NO!” quite emphatically, didn’t he?

 

[Seattle1]

And Bowman said “NO!” quite emphatically, didn’t he?

Duh... what attorney worth his salt is going to advise his client to inform LE that she's read and/or in possession of a COURT SEALED document!

 

[Jmoose]

Duh... what attorney worth his salt is going to advise his client to inform LE that she's read and/or in possession of a COURT SEALED document!

I’m sure she was just going to claim that Fotis “told her” what was in it-I think Bowman knew she’d seen it, and so had her entire family, and Petu. I do wonder if Petu was implying that the report would effectively clear it all up, when she said she had evidence of MT’s innocence. Remember when she tapped the bag she had with her? She’s seen it, too, and they all count on this report as proof positive, that Michi is “innocente”. They hustled her off the stand pretty quickly.

 

[Seattle1]

I’m sure she was just going to claim that Fotis “told her” what was in it-I think Bowman knew she’d seen it, and so had her entire family, and Petu. I do wonder if Petu was implying that the report would effectively clear it all up, when she said she had evidence of MT’s innocence. Remember when she tapped the bag she had with her? She’s seen it, too, and they all count on this report as proof positive, that Michi is “innocente”. They hustled her off the stand pretty quickly.

Lol, MT can't help herself-- she'd blow it!

Just watching JLS twist himself up over how he was appealing to the court (i.e., court reporter) as a citizen, seeking the transcript from a public hearing-- before it was closed to the public-- without required notice, just to gain a hint of evidence from the court-sealed report! AND all the while, MT looking down on him with such disrespect-- as if to say, 'enough already, time for you to get off your feigned moral high ground of professional ethics when my life is on the line!'

For heaven's sake, MT was carrying the electronic copy of the Herman report to court with her during the trial!

In other words -- "Just use my copy, Jon!"

Get it done.

ETA: I also think Bowman further tried to protect MT in that he was first contacted by Fotis who was fishing for representation, and when Bowman didn't take his bait, he offered up MT. But I do think Bowman initially saw/learned of the report from Fotis.

Again, MT is dirty, just like she looked down on JLS for trying to obtain and admit the report legally, she wasted no time trying to ignore and/or overstep Bowman's professional, ethical responsibility during LE questioning (i.e, should I tell LE about "the report").

Also, amazing how proficient MT's command of English was in 2020.... JMO

 

[Jmoose]

Lol, MT can't help herself-- she'd blow it!

Just watching JLS twist himself up over how he was appealing to the court (i.e., court reporter) as a citizen, seeking the transcript from a public hearing-- before it was closed to the public-- without required notice, just to gain a hint of evidence from the court-sealed report! AND all the while, MT looking down on him with such disrespect-- as if to say, 'enough already, time for you to get off your feigned moral high ground of professional ethics when my life is on the line!'

For heaven's sake, MT was carrying the electronic copy of the Herman report to court with her during the trial!

In other words -- "Just use my copy, Jon!"

Get it done.

ETA: I also think Bowman further tried to protect MT in that he was first contacted by Fotis who was fishing for representation, and when Bowman didn't take his bait, he offered up MT. But I do think Bowman initially saw/learned of the report from Fotis.

Again, MT is dirty, just like she looked down on JLS for trying to obtain and admit the report legally, she wasted no time trying to ignore and/or overstep Bowman's professional, ethical responsibility during LE questioning (i.e, should I tell LE about "the report").

Also, amazing how proficient MT's command of English was in 2020.... JMO

It really is remarkable to see the revisionist history that MT and family have been spewing, isn’t it? I imagine that they view the lack of consequences for her attempt to display that custody report as evidence that she never had it, which we know is ridiculous. My real concern is the judicial system in CT, which lets her get away with it-and will continue to do so in subsequent hearings. I maintain that she will never serve 14.5 years in prison because of it.

 

[LosAngeles]

Maybe she's misbehaving in York (like Erik Menendez) and will be denied an early release. Something tells me she is (strip searching BEFORE a visitor). Prison can't reform someone like MT. It's impossible. The felony transformation (in her case) was only in hair style and clothing upgrade. We all remember the social media posts taken prior to her involvement with the murder of sweet Jennifer.

 

[Diddian]

MT is like the "energizer bunny" of convicts demanding freedom because "they didn't do it." Looking forward to the day the batteries are removed by an appellate judge who values the law and recognizes dishonesty as a corrosive force against it.

 

[Jmoose]

MT is like the "energizer bunny" of convicts demanding freedom because "they didn't do it." Looking forward to the day the batteries are removed by an appellate judge who values the law and recognizes dishonesty as a corrosive force against it.

I hope there is a sane judge somewhere in the state of CT!

 

[pernickety]

I also think Bowman further tried to protect MT in that he was first contacted by Fotis who was fishing for representation,

AIR, Fotis was first represented by Atty Eugene Riccio for his initial court appearances. Riccio then withdrew, I think, for whatever reason. AIR, Fotis first spoke with Atty Kevin Smith, when NP was out of town. Then NP met with FD, who cooked him a dinner. NP praised his cooking. NP then began to look into FD's 401k.

 

[Seattle1]

AIR, Fotis was first represented by Atty Eugene Riccio for his initial court appearances. Riccio then withdrew, I think, for whatever reason. AIR, Fotis first spoke with Atty Kevin Smith, when NP was out of town. Then NP met with FD, who cooked him a dinner. NP praised his cooking. NP then began to look into FD's 401k.

I'm not implying Bowman ever filed a notice and represented Fotis in court! And I don't want to read MT's Sept 2024 Petition, but it was reported on 9/16/24 in the CT Post that MT's petition cited Fotis first hired Bowman when Jennifer disappeared. And more recently, on 8/14/25, the Stamford Advocate repeated the same.

https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-jennifer-dulos-habeas-petition-19768828.php

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/jennifer-dulos-michelle-troconis-challenge-trial-20817334.php

 

[pernickety]

I'm not implying Bowman ever filed a notice and represented Fotis in court! And I don't want to read MT's Sept 2024 Petition, but it was reported on 9/16/24 in the CT Post that MT's petition cited Fotis first hired Bowman when Jennifer disappeared. And more recently, on 8/14/25, the Stamford Advocate repeated the same.

https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-jennifer-dulos-habeas-petition-19768828.php

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/jennifer-dulos-michelle-troconis-challenge-trial-20817334.php

IMO it would have to be determined if there was a signed retainer agreement between FD and AB. If so, there could be a conflict of interest, I suppose, in AB then representing MT, if her defense was going to be that she was innocent of FD's actions. But I'd think FD would have been the one to claim the conflict--as a former client?

 

[Megnut]

IMO it would have to be determined if there was a signed retainer agreement between FD and AB. If so, there could be a conflict of interest, I suppose, in AB then representing MT, if her defense was going to be that she was innocent of FD's actions. But I'd think FD would have been the one to claim the conflict--as a former client?

If memory serves me, FD hired Bowman FOR MT. To be HER attorney. IMO he already had his own attorney lined up.

Won't surprise if she's trying to rewrite this history too.

The nerve.

JMO