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

[Megnut]

Yes, MT said 'two years of torture' and said also that she and Dulos were fighting constantly. Why not pick up and leave and go to CO where she had the condo? She has alluded to this plan very briefly and not too strongly imo. Why stay with someone who has effectively lied to you for 2 years about his relationship status then the divorce and then the finances etc? MT could have picked up and left right after the last Family Court hearing when it was clear that Dulos needed a new attorney that he couldn't afford and that the finances had been fraudulently presented and would have had to been redone? Instead, MT participated in the 'Murders Eve Dinner" and continued to support Dulos. I find it hard to believe she was at all happy with the relationship at that point and imo she frankly seemed a bit checked out with the whole 'Murders Eve Dinner' scenario and cooking etc. I just wondered what was promised to her that she would still hang on with her support EVEN after it was clear that Dulos had moved on to another person and had installed that person at 4JX? Was it just the MT knowledge of her actual role and never being able to come clean? Or, was it something more and possibly access to the money that Dulos might have hidden as his finances were a mess as even with all the work of JF attorney Weinstein, was never fully unraveled imo.

Why?

Money.

Money, money, money.

She glombed onto FD in the first place because he portrayed a certain lifestyle.

And by the time that petered out, she was well aware of the Farber vault. FD was her ticket to riches.

MT does not "do" men with thin pocketbooks.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

HUGE POINT

It was MT's decision to interview with LE. He could advise her but it was her right. Just like a defendant has the right to testify or not testify at trial.

She chose this.

 

[Megnut]

Reviewing for myself --

So she voluntarily have up her right to silence. Ignored her attorney's admonition to interview ONLY IF she was going to be honest. Those same interviews ultimately convicted her, and now she eats to say she didn't understand English and thought she was... what? Going to be given accessories?

You don't get to appeal your conviction on the mere grounds you don't like the verdict, especially when the strategic decisions were yours all along!

 

[Megnut]

Seriously, how do you represent to the court that you had ineffective counsel when you had effective counsel you ignored?

 

[Eli9]

Will AB be the only witness? Are there more? Does MT take the stand?

I've never seen this type of court petition before.

 

[Megnut]

Also this: we've all watched enough TV to know that immunity is a careful dance. Sweetheart deals do occur, but the State is never going to give it freely! They need to know the party has something useful to give AND that they aren't deeper in the dirt than they know.

The Defense can try to wiggle around this, but no one was going to offer MT a sweetheart deal until they felt certain she was both forthcoming and credible --

Had she done that, I'm certain the deal would have been made.

So why wouldn't MT go through that door?

She couldn't, but without making it far worse for herself.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

How does MT get any credit anywhere for taking LE to a site where JFd wasn't?

SMH

 

[Megnut]

They're talking about MT's PHONE. How awesome would it be if THIS hearing opens THAT door?!

Bring it!

 

[Megnut]

FYI judge set the tone for this hearing. He said he'll allow direct, cross, re-direct, re-cross, but no more.

 

[Megnut]

Defense is about 2/3 through with their cross.

Adjourned for the day

 

[Seattle1]

Will AB be the only witness? Are there more? Does MT take the stand?

I've never seen this type of court petition before.

This is MT's witness list on 12/1/25.

Also added an expert witness (MICHAEL FITZPATRICK) a few days ago who will testify about the standards of care for Connecticut criminal defense attorneys representing clients under the circumstances set forth in the petitioner’s Revised Habeas Corpus Petition (attempt to dirty AB).

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31458975

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31646792

 

[Jmoose]

This is MT's witness list on 12/1/25.

Also added an expert witness (MICHAEL FITZPATRICK) a few days ago who will testify about the standards of care for Connecticut criminal defense attorneys representing clients under the circumstances set forth in the petitioner’s Revised Habeas Corpus Petition (attempt to dirty AB).

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31458975

https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31646792

If they are “almost certainly” going to call Marisela Arreaza as a witness, is she supposed to be in the courtroom prior to her testifying?

 

[Megnut]

If they are “almost certainly” going to call Marisela Arreaza as a witness, is she supposed to be in the courtroom prior to her testifying?

IMO 0% chance they're calling her.

 

[Seattle1]

If they are “almost certainly” going to call Marisela Arreaza as a witness, is she supposed to be in the courtroom prior to her testifying?

Since this (petition trial) is more like a bench trial, no jury present, I doubt that she's required to be sequestered. But I also doubt she'll be called as a witness. This family can't hold up to cross-examination without serious damage-- if not perjury! JMO

 

[Megnut]

Since this (petition trial) is more like a bench trial, no jury present, I doubt that she's required to be sequestered. But I also doubt she'll be called as a witness. This family can't hold up to cross-examination without serious damage-- if not perjury! JMO

I'm pretty sure the judge opened by saying he WAS going to enforce sequestration. Happy to be proven wrong, but that's what I thought I heard.

But you're exactly right -- the threat of perjury is no small thing here.

100% she doesn't testify. IMO.

JMO

 

[Jmoose]

Since this (petition trial) is more like a bench trial, no jury present, I doubt that she's required to be sequestered. But I also doubt she'll be called as a witness. This family can't hold up to cross-examination without serious damage-- if not perjury! JMO

I agree with you. I would imagine that she has zero value as a witness.

 

[Megnut]

I agree with you. I would imagine that she has zero value as a witness.

Not unlike this habeas corpus as a whole.

 

[Jmoose]

Not unlike this habeas corpus as a whole.

True! This isn’t likely to make her look better. In fact, I’d say that the word for the day is “lie”, and it’s applied only to MT.

 

[Eli9]

I'm pretty sure the judge opened by saying he WAS going to enforce sequestration. Happy to be proven wrong, but that's what I thought I heard.

But you're exactly right -- the threat of perjury is no small thing here.

100% she doesn't testify. IMO.

JMO

You're not wrong.

I heard that also.

 

[Megnut]

Anybody got a live feed?