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

[BJarv]

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.

Yes, but I think the part that is missing here is that Atty Bowman and Atty Colangelo had a working relationship that was such that there was trust as to what the process would entail. This is not a huge city type situation and with Fitzgerald saying about faxing in notice about representation etc. is nuts as Bowman had already been in contact with Colangelo, NCPD and CSP/Det. Kimball. My point is that this universe in CT/Fairfield County is VERY SMALL and these same people work with each other all the time. Even though this location is less than 40 miles from NYC, this is not like dealing with NYPD on a criminal matter. Totally different universe and very small group of players. These defense attorneys know all of the police, the captains, CSP Barrack member and leadership and ditto for States Prosecutors. These folks imo ALL speak with each other in shorthand as they work with each other all the time. If Colangelo didn't have trust with Bowman and visa versa, NONE of the interviews would have happened imo. What makes me angry is that Fitzgerald is PART OF THIS NETWORK and he is not imo doing justice to explaining how things work in the area. Shame on him for misleading this process quite badly imo. This imo is simply pay for play in the worst sense of this phrase. I am also quite angry and find this entirely DISTASTEFUL because Colangelo didn't give the cooperation agreement to PG for an entire year. WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT THIS and the idea that Colangelo would have simply given an agreement without diligence is just absurd imo.

 

[Megnut]

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.

It's a fallacy though.

You can't look back at an event and hold AB accountable for an outcome he couldn't have known at the time.

JMO

 

[BJarv]

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

Distasteful imo is simply too kind to describe this circus.

I would love to know how many proffer agreements happen for criminal cases in CT at the State level! My guess is that the conversations between Colangelo and Bowman effectively functioned in this small universe they operated in as a quasi proffer. I also would be curious as to whether PG Atty put forward a proffer and allowed his client to work with CSP for a year before getting a formal agreement of any kind. My guess is there was no formal proffer for PG but there would have been emails outlining the scope of the arrangement for the cooperation of PG.

 

[Eli9]

It's a fallacy though.

You can't look back at an event and hold AB accountable for an outcome he couldn't have known at the time.

JMO

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. As I understand it he is stating that she should have gone in with some sort of an agreement of protection. In my opinion I think AB covered himself well with his testimony that no such protection was going to be offered by LE. I think he made that clear to MT as well.

 

[Megnut]

This is insane.

MT had attorney-client privilege until this very hearing. Atty Fitzgerald is full of words for what AB ought to have done.

Again, there were other ways to defend her. That's always true. I bet winning lawyers live to criticize losing attorneys, like sport. But he doesn't know every conversation MT and AB had! To imply AB, an esteemed attorney, DIDN'T do his diligence as MT's attorney, that's wild!

This is rubbish! AB DID talk to MT about interviewing and not interviewing! All the risks, on both sides.

I want to go on record -- attorneys examining other attorneys under oath great gladiator fodder. Their bread and butter is argument. You can always point-counter point and these are professionaks paid exactly to do that!

Fun but it doesn't change the facts!

MT hoodwinked her own attorney.

That may be to his shame but it doesn't make for ineffectiveness!

JMO

 

[BJarv]

This coercion line of questioning is absurd. No evidence of coercion. Judge is allowing it. Insanity imo.

 

[acutename]

Yes, but I think the part that is missing here is that Atty Bowman and Atty Colangelo had a working relationship that was such that there was trust as to what the process would entail. This is not a huge city type situation and with Fitzgerald saying about faxing in notice about representation etc. is nuts as Bowman had already been in contact with Colangelo, NCPD and CSP/Det. Kimball. My point is that this universe in CT/Fairfield County is VERY SMALL and these same people work with each other all the time. Even though this location is less than 40 miles from NYC, this is not like dealing with NYPD on a criminal matter. Totally different universe and very small group of players. These defense attorneys know all of the police, the captains, CSP Barrack member and leadership and ditto for States Prosecutors. These folks imo ALL speak with each other in shorthand as they work with each other all the time. If Colangelo didn't have trust with Bowman and visa versa, NONE of the interviews would have happened imo. What makes me angry is that Fitzgerald is PART OF THIS NETWORK and he is not imo doing justice to explaining how things work in the area. Shame on him for misleading this process quite badly imo. This imo is simply pay for play in the worst sense of this phrase. I am also quite angry and find this entirely DISTASTEFUL because Colangelo didn't give the cooperation agreement to PG for an entire year. WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT THIS and the idea that Colangelo would have simply given an agreement without diligence is just absurd imo.

he is saying she should have been advised to give no interviews without an agreement...we really do not know everything B told MT or what she told him- he only testified briefly. The "threat of charging" was not bluffing-they had evidence and they did charge her.

 

[Megnut]

Why didn't AB present AD Colangelo with what MT was going to give them? Broken an agreement in writing?

Because he believed MT and because he had a long-standing professional relationship with the key players. AB wasn't playing games, Colangelo wasn't playing games. It wasn't a bluff.

As soon as MT gave a credible answer, AB would have asked for -- and received -- a sweetheart deal. These professionals trusted each other.

JMO

 

[BJarv]

Judge reaching imo on allowing these hypotheticals and choosing not to focus on the facts in evidence along with today's testimony.

This process simply seems wrong. This is backseat driving to reinvent peoples words and making judgments about other attorneys decisions and words in the moment.

 

[BJarv]

Why didn't AB present AD Colangelo with what MT was going to give them? Broken an agreement in writing?

Because he believed MT and because he had a long-standing professional relationship with the key players. AB wasn't playing games, Colangelo wasn't playing games. It wasn't a bluff.

As soon as MT gave a credible answer, AB would have asked for -- and received -- a sweetheart deal. These professionals trusted each other.

JMO

Absolutely. What makes me so angry is that FITZGERALD KNOWS THIS AS HE DOES THE SAME THINGS THAT BOWMAN HAS DONE!

 

[Eli9]

No One would have given her full immunity. The thought and testimony about that this is utter insanity.

 

[Jmoose]

This is insane.

MT had attorney-client privilege until this very hearing. Atty Fitzgerald is full of words for what AB ought to have done.

Again, there were other ways to defend her. That's always true. I bet winning lawyers live to criticize losing attorneys, like sport. But he doesn't know every conversation MT and AB had! To imply AB, an esteemed attorney, DIDN'T do his diligence as MT's attorney, that's wild!

This is rubbish! AB DID talk to MT about interviewing and not interviewing! All the risks, on both sides.

I want to go on record -- attorneys examining other attorneys under oath great gladiator fodder. Their bread and butter is argument. You can always point-counter point and these are professionaks paid exactly to do that!

Fun but it doesn't change the facts!

MT hoodwinked her own attorney.

That may be to his shame but it doesn't make for ineffectiveness!

JMO

Quite right-So Bowman was ineffective, because he believed her???

 

[Megnut]

he is saying she should have been advised to give no interviews without an agreement...we really do not know everything B told MT or what she told him- he only testified briefly. The "threat of charging" was not bluffing-they had evidence and they did charge her.

If AB believed MT was innocent, how exactly was he supposed to draft a What MT Knows? Any truthful answer she gave would assist the State (and not hurt her, because he believed she was innocent) (and actually help her because it would take eyes off her and square them solely on FD).

 

[BJarv]

Ah the 'blame the lawyer' line and him yelling it is simply wrong as MT was advised appropriately and she chose to do her own thing and play her own lawyer. MT was protected by Bowman but she I believe thought she knew better and now she wants a do over.

 

[Jmoose]

This coercion line of questioning is absurd. No evidence of coercion. Judge is allowing it. Insanity imo.

This is why she was smiling today, maybe-look at how the judge is ruling on every objection that Bowman’s attorney is making.

 

[Megnut]

Atty Fitzgerald: "No reasonable attorney.... would make a client go into an interview to prove her innocence."

Who did that? Not AB. He believed she was innocent. He believed that by helping the State, she could help herself.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Talk about re-framing. Atty Fitzgerakd is saying that AB created a conflict of interests, using MT's testimony as a tool for the State

It was in MT's best interest to cooperate with the State. That's still true!!!

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Seriously? She was hungry, tired...a poor witness.. language barriers....

Oh, please. None of that caused her to be a liar.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

There. At least the State got this in the record -- Atty Fitzgerald is operating from hindsight.

JMO

 

[Eli9]

Cross better be good.