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

[acutename]

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.

imagine that this expert and MT's current atty told the MT side that he could have done this better. I wonder if B has been accused of this before because this would be awful for a newer atty- obviously this expert is going to skewer B- wonder if he has heard it all before.

 

[BJarv]

Fitzgerald claims that MT was:


1. Emotionally distraught
2. Exhausted
3. Not in english
4. Not a good candidate for police interview

The way she fielded questions did not make her a strong witness. Fitzgerald didn't think Bowman caught these issues with MT.

Objection: arguing in hindsight and asking Fitzgerald to assess another witnesses credibility. Judge allows it and denys all objections.

1. Difficulty answering simple question. 2. Sometimes she talks extensively with great detail on small issues. 3. Not responsive to question. 4. Gives inconsistent answers. 5. At times she has uncertainty as to her answers. 6. answers based on what is usually done and not the actual circumstance. 7. Missing point of questions.

 

[Megnut]

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

I think he has to. It's their  hearing.

So far, I see nothing overturny.

I think the judge will close the door on this, when he rules.

JMO

 

[acutename]

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

yeah- he sets up a straw man and defeats it

 

[Megnut]

Fitzgerald claims that MT was:


1. Emotionally distraught
2. Exhausted
3. Not in english
4. Not a good candidate for police interview

The way she fielded questions did not make her a strong witness. Fitzgerald didn't think Bowman caught these issues with MT.

Objection: arguing in hindsight and asking Fitzgerald to assess another witnesses credibility. Judge allows it and denys all objections.

1. Difficulty answering simple question. 2. Sometimes she talks extensively with great detail on small issues. 3. Not responsive to question. 4. Gives inconsistent answers. 5. At times she has uncertainty as to her answers. 6. answers based on what is usually done and not the actual circumstance. 7. Missing point of questions.

It remains true that, despite any or all of that, it was in her best interest to work with LE. She was going to be arrested, period.

This was her chance to mitigate.

It was her path to get the least sentence.

JMO

 

[acutename]

Fitzgerald claims that MT was:


1. Emotionally distraught
2. Exhausted
3. Not in english
4. Not a good candidate for police interview

The way she fielded questions did not make her a strong witness. Fitzgerald didn't think Bowman caught these issues with MT.

Objection: arguing in hindsight and asking Fitzgerald to assess another witnesses credibility. Judge allows it and denys all objections.

1. Difficulty answering simple question. 2. Sometimes she talks extensively with great detail on small issues. 3. Not responsive to question. 4. Gives inconsistent answers. 5. At times she has uncertainty as to her answers. 6. answers based on what is usually done and not the actual circumstance. 7. Missing point of questions.

this really makes her a great power to defend herself in a new trial! B could very well have told her he thought she should not talk to the investigators. we do not know if he 95% said do not do this- and she just made her decision.

 

[BJarv]

This is stunning testimony to allow AFTER THE FACT imo. Totally speculative from Fitzgerald imo. Interview to demonstrate innocence. Not to answer questions Police wanted answers to about JF. Issue of 'pleasing the police' or 'satisfy the police' is raised by Fitzgerald regarding the interviews. Many objections on characterization of 6/2 interview. Judge overrules. References to 'game' being played by Bowman imo is offensive.

 

[BJarv]

this really makes her a great power to defend herself in a new trial! B could very well have told her he thought she should not talk to the investigators. we do not know if he 95% said do not do this- and she just made her decision.

She also CHOSE to not TESTIFY AT HER OWN TRIAL. If she felt she needed to correct the record then she passed on fixing the record at trial.

 

[BJarv]

Judge is allowing speculation on what the police knew by Fitzgerald without any relevant testimony.

This is wild and imo quite wrong.

 

[Jmoose]

I think he has to. It's their  hearing.

So far, I see nothing overturny.

I think the judge will close the door on this, when he rules.

JMO

I hope you are right.

 

[Megnut]

Judge is allowing speculation on what the police knew by Fitzgerald without any relevant testimony.

This is wild and imo quite wrong.

I think it goes to  hearing. He has to hear them.

i think his ruling won't favor them.

 

[BJarv]

Judge is allowing Fitzgerald 'opinions' on Bowmans actions without any direct opinion from Bowman on the topic. I hope Bowman gets recalled to deal with speculation on his own actions. I find this wild and absolutely distasteful to allow speculation on what was in the mind of the defense attorney or frankly any attorney in the moment without having the attorney in question being allowed to rebut the speculation as to their statements and behaviour. WILD STUFF. Not sure about this Judge at all.

Sidebar regarding scheduling. Afternoon break.

 

[Eli9]

This Fitzgerald guy said he gets about 6-8 requests for expert testimony a year and normally turns them down.

He wants this high profile case for publicity of himself.

I can't wait for the judge to slap this away like a fly. Keep MT in prison and put a stain on the record of Fitzgerald.

MOO

 

[Seattle1]

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

Complete rubbish! I suspected this when Fitzgerald wasn't added as a witness for the petitioner until last week!

 

[Jmoose]

Judge is allowing Fitzgerald 'opinions' on Bowmans actions without any direct opinion from Bowman on the topic. I hope Bowman gets recalled to deal with speculation on his own actions. I find this wild and absolutely distasteful to allow speculation on what was in the mind of the defense attorney or frankly any attorney in the moment without having the attorney in question being allowed to rebut the speculation as to their statements and behaviour. WILD STUFF. Not sure about this Judge at all.

Sidebar regarding scheduling. Afternoon break.

I do dislike this judge.

 

[BJarv]

Deep breath needed during break. I am really struggling with allowing all this speculation from someone who didn't even read the entire transcript of the trial. But, its his speculation about Bowmans words and actions that truly hits me as being beyond the scope of ANY EXPERT. What is this Judge thinking? This is very disturbing to watch happen and by someone who only has selective knowledge of the case in question. Its almost like Fitzgerald as someone who has known Bowman for years is using his personal experience and knowledge of Bowman to then SPECULATE WILDLY AS TO WHAT WAS IN HIS MIND.

HOW can any so called EXPERT be considered well positioned to explain the words and actions of another attorney. I thought the expert would be in place to speak to professional rules of conduct etc. and then look at the timeline and record. This all seems to have gone off the rails quite spectacularly but also seems deeply wrong and disrespectful to any practitioner operating in good faith and who believes that their client is/was telling the truth. Its as if the entire reality of events that happened years ago are being absolutely recharacterized for purposes of this hearing to determine whether a new trial will be awarded.

I am shook.

 

[Jmoose]

This Fitzgerald guy said he gets about 6-8 requests for expert testimony a year and normally turns them down.

He wants this high profile case for publicity of himself.

I can't wait for the judge to slap this away like a fly. Keep MT in prison and put a stain on the record of Fitzgerald.

MOO

I don’t know that the judge will slap this away.

 

[Eli9]

I don’t know that the judge will slap this away.

I'm manifesting right now.

 

[Megnut]

She also CHOSE to not TESTIFY AT HER OWN TRIAL. If she felt she needed to correct the record then she passed on fixing the record at trial.

Bam!

If AB was so ineffective, how comes Atty Schoenhorn didn't mount a successful bid to pitch her interviews?

Because it's baseless. At the time, AB advised MT properly. That she didn't ultimately cooperate with LE couldn't have been known by AB before it occurred!

Would be advise her differently now? But how he advised her then made sense to him then.

She'd be out of jail already. Which would be way better than the current sentence she doesn't like.

Fact (IMO): MT wants a do-over. All the way to the beginning. Well, not the beginning- beginning. But the beginning of interviews. She wants to not have talked.

Which AB advised her to do. Two paths. Be truthful, talk. Don't be truthful, don't talk.

She picked the third path -- don't be truthful, talk. She BarryMorphewed.

This isn't how appeals work. Don't like the adventure you chose so ho back a few pages and chose another.

AB isn't even on trial for ineffective counsel here. He's on trial for believing her. (Credit @Jmoose )

But even so, he still counseled her appropriately (effectively) -- don't go in there and lie.

Rock solid attorneying.

JMO

 

[BJarv]

The only small justice in this train wreck is that imo the reputation of Atty Bowman over a VERY long period of time speaks for itself and imo surpasses ANY defense work or expert testimony of Fitzgerald. Basically I don't view these two attorneys as on the same playing field in many respects. I am shook that all Fitzgerald gets for imo wildly speculating about being 'inside the mind of Andy Bowman' is $350/hr! Going rate for defense work in the area is $1,000/hr. I very much question what all is going here and also what this Judge is allowing to play out on the record and I PRAY that none of this imo nonsense expert testimony impacts the appeal.