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

[BJarv]

All these seasoned individuals were all confused by MT's apparent devotion to FD.

But that is the red herring here. She devoted to no one! She demands devotion, not the other way around!

IMO they were all banging their heads together, for it appeared that MT could divorce herself of involvement by offering up FD. And yet she wouldn't. Ergo, the question -- what's wrong with her, that she's not "getting" it. To avoid arrest, it was in her best interest (according to all present) to urb his hide to save her tail.

Only one conclusion to be drawn IMO -- MT was deeply involved and did not know how to fill in LE blanks in a way that didn't implicate herself, and aware of that, she could only re-iterate.

She couldn't weave a lie in which FD was responsible and she was not involved. And... I'm not sure it's ever dawned on her that her beloved FD did that on purpose so that she could never leave him holding the bag.

If she had ANY wits about herself, she Sofia have said the plan was to abduction JFd, shake her up, and scare her into divorcing on FD's terms, claim she was party to that but never to murder and that the murder and everything after was FD's doing. It wouldn't hold up but it would make more sense than she had no idea.

The State did a great job at trial, even without her phone, establishing how out of character it would have been for jealous, distructful, with-reason-to-distrust MT would have been if she awoke to find FD not at home at 5am in the morning...

Nope. Instead they had leftover Greek salad and lunched it up like trustful lovers. No 'where were you?', no "who were you with?"

And if FD wasn't with JFd that morning and JFd wasn't murdered, what was MT hiding from when LE arrived at 4 JC that evening? What, she had a premonition it was going to be about something from which she'd want to remove herself?

JMO

So agree. The MT sleeping in the room with her daughter on Murders Eve was another component of this insane 'plan' imo and the State tried to attack this at trial and then Schoenhorn did the ridiculous reply where he played the local weatherman. Virtually everything from the 'Murders Eve Dinner" to MT sleeping with her daughter etc. seemed well planned. I am not sure if this planning was a mutual event of the co-conspirators or was it MT simply looking out for plausible deniability. I mean, who could ever forget the selfie done with the robot in Stop and Shop grocery store?

 

[BJarv]

I find this whole thing RICH ( preposterous) --

AB counseled her to speak to LE if she was going to be truthful or not speak to LE otherwise.

That SHE chose to ignore him and lie to LE, that's a matter of strategy. She picked a poor one.

I don't see how you get a second trial because you regret your chosen strategy.

And this hearing, they're flailing. Trying so hard to make her interviews AB's fault when clearly he advised her not to do what she chose ultimately to do.

JMO

Hubris, Arrogance, Ignorance, Entitlement etc. to ask for a 'do over' and new trial.

But, I think what we are seeing is absolutely consistent with the entire life story of MT which never involves accountability or honestly and always involves someone else cleaning up her messes and lies and its also always cleaned up using other peoples money too imo.

I simply don't understand why this Habeas action was permitted to go forward?

The person I would LOVE to hear from (even though I think his sentencing decision was horrific) would be Judge Randolph. I don't think Judges can be part of this process though, but in my perfect world I'd love to hear what Judge thought of MT lies. But, he also was quite misguided to allow the absolute shitshow of impact statement testimony as well as allowing MT to make a statement BUT NOT TO HIT THE STAND UNDER OATH. Nothing about the impact statement process and the MT statement being allowed made any sense to me.

 

[BJarv]

Is there a feed where I can play back testimony?

Not yet. Check youtube later or the stations website and see if its archived. I just tried as I missed about 10 min. Very annoying.

 

[Megnut]

She thinks she’s getting out of prison soon, that’s why she’s happy

Spoiler: she's not.

 

[Megnut]

The judge, in my opinion, is leaning heavily towards MT’s team, as far as objections go.

I was sick the day they covered habeas corpus in lawyer school but I'm okay with the judge voicing greater latitude to the Defense here, as it's their writ. This way he allows them to say whatever they want said, almost without restriction. Then when he puts an end to the circus, they can't say they didn't get to display all their monkeys.

This is their hearing. He's required to hear everything.

He seems like a reasonable man. I think that, after having heard everything, he won't grant her what she's seeking. Her attorney represented her well and in good faith.

The End

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Absolutely agree! He even cut off both Bowman and States Atty a couple of times. Can't get hopes up much on any of this sadly as this is Corrupticut and the land of bail reform and where its a good day for justice if violent felons serve 50% of their sentence! its a very bad situation imo in CT and my guess is that might just be why MT and her family have goofy grins pasted on their pasty faces!

Your apprehension, sadly, is a fair one. Enter corruption on multiple levels and anything goes. But barring that, I think a hearing like this favors the filer, it doesn't mean the judge favors the Defense. (I really should be saying 'MT's counsel' because they're in the Petitioner position for this hearing, iiuc.)

I haven't heard anything that moves the needle.

I think, while the judge's ultimate ruling might be thorough (lengthy) his position will be succinct.

MT won't be smiling.

JMO

 

[BJarv]

Back on the record with Atty Colangelo.

 

[Megnut]

That was quick.

 

[BJarv]

This entire line of questioning about threatening that MT would never see her child again is imo WILD! I now wonder if she was psychotic or otherwise out of touch with reality (eg. weed or coke as was long rumored with FD and MT and their crowd of friends) at the time this was all happening. Atty Colangelo excused.

Michael Fitzpatrick on the stand.

 

[Megnut]

Atty Michael Fitzpatrick, next.

 

[BJarv]

That was quick.

I am quite sad to not have heard more about the lying timeline with Colangelo and when he dismissed her as being a viable candidate for a cooperation agreement.

 

[BJarv]

Atty Fitzpatrick is mainly a criminal defense atty. 33 criminal trials, including 16 murder cases. Purdue undergraduate and University of Bridgeport/Quinnipiac Law School.

Being questioned about proffer agreements, cooperation agreements etc.

Has known Atty Bowman for 38 years.

 

[Megnut]

This entire line of questioning about threatening that MT would never see her child again is imo WILD! I now wonder if she was psychotic or otherwise out of touch with reality (eg. weed or coke as was long rumored with FD and MT and their crowd of friends) at the time this was all happening. Atty Colangelo excused.

Michael Fitzpatrick on the stand.

It's all on tape. By which I mean none of what she's claiming is on tape. Didn't happen.

They did remind her that she's a mother.... sad they should have had to...

They did tell her, through her attorney iirc, that she would be charged.

If she was worried about being separated from her child, that's on her.

Choices have consequences, Honey.

JMO

 

[BJarv]

Atty Fitzgerald is a paid expert witness. He was retained by Schoenhorn in the original trial during discovery if I understood it correctly. He has testified in habeas cases (including Skakel habeas) 12 times as expert (hasn't given testimony is all cases but was still expert on cases).

 

[BJarv]

YIKES! Opinion that Bowman standard of care absent protections on 6/2 interview was insufficient and not in line with CT guidelines for the convicted felon.

 

[BJarv]

I hope they bring up the PG letter of cooperation not happening for over a year.

 

[Eli9]

YIKES! Opinion that Bowman standard of care absent protections on 6/2 interview was insufficient and not in line with CT guidelines for the convicted felon.

Yep

Star/paid witness (350$ an hour) will be a major challenge to Bowman's handling of the case.

 

[Megnut]

Oh, boy. I see what they're trying to do. I call foul.

Y'all seen the movie Sully (or know the story)? Spoiler: The Moment is the movie is when Tom Hank's makes Sulky's point -- humans react. Reaction takes times. There's reconstruction didn't take that into consideration. And had they given human reaction on a one-two count, they're works not have been enough fuel to reach the airport and the plane would have crashed.

Here, they are looking at a retrospect of MT's trial and interviews. That AB allowed MT to lie to LE which led to her unfair conviction and therefore AB failed as her attorney.

But those interviews happened in real time. AB didn't know she'd lie. AB didn't know FD would commit suicide. AB didn't know JFd 's body would remain missing. AB didn't know he'd be replaced as her counsel.

It's abundantly unfair IMO to hold AB somehow responsible for the utter fallout of MT's chronic poor choicing! He couldn't know what he didn't know! He couldn't know what hadn't even happened yet!

Hell, he believed her, believed she would sick FD to save herself -- to the point that he was flabbertroconised, trying to make sense of the Why She Wouldn't. Including that maybe she just wasn't understanding.

I think there's one conclusion for the judge -- AB acted in good faith and offered effective counsel at that time.

Later, deciding the interviews sunk MT and trying to pull them back is just wishful thinking.

She was fully advised of her rights by both LE and her own attorney -- and she willfully picked proceeding anyway.

Spanish, English, whichever -- lies are her love language.

JMO

 

[Eli9]

Oh, boy. I see what they're trying to do. I call foul.

Y'all seen the movie Sully (or know the story)? Spoiler: The Moment is the movie is when Tom Hank's makes Sulky's point -- humans react. Reaction takes times. There's reconstruction didn't take that into consideration. And had they given human reaction on a one-two count, they're works not have been enough fuel to reach the airport and the plane would have crashed.

Here, they are looking at a retrospect of MT's trial and interviews. That AB allowed MT to lie to LE which led to her unfair conviction and therefore AB failed as her attorney.

But those interviews happened in real time. AB didn't know she'd lie. AB didn't know FD would commit suicide. AB didn't know JFd 's body would remain missing. AB didn't know he'd be replaced as her counsel.

It's abundantly unfair IMO to hold AB somehow responsible for the utter fallout of MT's chronic poor choicing! He couldn't know what he didn't know! He couldn't know what hadn't even happened yet!

Hell, he believed her, believed she would sick FD to save herself -- to the point that he was flabbertroconised, trying to make sense of the Why She Wouldn't. Including that maybe she just wasn't understanding.

I think there's one conclusion for the judge -- AB acted in good faith and offered effective counsel at that time.

Later, deciding the interviews sunk MT and trying to pull them back is just wishful thinking.

She was fully advised of her rights by both LE and her own attorney -- and she willfully picked proceeding anyway.

Spanish, English, whichever -- lies are her love language.

JMO

Totally agree but he is also saying that there is more than just self incrimination she should have been warned about and also that she should have certain protections provided to her prior to giving the interviews. If I am understanding him correctly.

 

[Megnut]

Make this stop.

Of course, there were other ways to approach representing MT. That's always the case. And especially easy when it's Monday morning quarterbacking.

It's easy now, in hindsight, to say welp, that didn't work.

You don't get to appeal for a do-ever because your strategy failed!

Every trial could have been tried or defended differently.

If AB knew that MT was lying and was going to continue to lie, he would have thrown himself bodily in front of her runaway interview train. That he did not shows the extent to which he believed her and believed she was moving toward cooperation.

One defense attorney critiquing another -- I find that distasteful.

I disagree with Atty Fitzgerald.

IMO in real time AB did operate within the standard of care.

Everybody agrees now that MT should NEVER have done those interviews! Devastating for her.

If she had been forthcoming, FD would have been arrested, she have been given a perfunctory sentence, he'd be alive, she'd already be out, and AB would have been celebrated for his representation.

He didn't know she was going to lie. And be unbudging in it. Or he wouldn't have allowed it.

He did feel her out. He felt she was truthful, he believed she was an unwitting player, and he believed the DA that a deal could be struck. Only go in there if you're going to be honest.

SHE said she was going in.

Reasonable to conclude that she intended to be truthful.

This is a fishing expedition after all the fish are gone.

JMO