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

[BJarv]

Lawyer Lee who followed the original trial apparently has been following the Habeas testimony. Haven't watched this but am putting it here for any that might be interested. I generally enjoy Lawyer Lees takes on legal procedure at trial but imo she was late to the entire Dulos/Troconis case and so didn't have the full history and imo this impacted her trial takes. JMO.

 

[BJarv]

There is absolutely no comparing MT to a 'real' cooperating witness-- one who has the truth on his side, and knows that being honest does not include lying for Fotis!

Pawel spoke with investigators from 2019-2023, and didn't have a written Agreement from the State until Dec 2023 -- just weeks before he testified.

P Gumienny's Lawyer Speaks

2/7/24

Urso spoke to the media outside of court during a break, saying that his client just wants to get out of the spotlight and "get back to his life."

Urso commented on how his client may have been "too cooperative" with police during their search efforts for Jennifer.

"Early on, he was talking to the police against my advice,” Urso said. "He went in there and talked to the police before he hired me, before we had the immunity agreement."

Concerning Gumienny's immunity deal, it started as a verbal agreement between Urso and the state's attorney in 2019 and was put in writing in December 2023. It promised that Gumienny would not be charged with hindering prosecution if he cooperated with investigators.

"The immunity deal was originally not an ironclad, it was just sort of a conversation between myself and the state’s attorney," Urso said.

To Urso's understanding, "I don't think he's ever been a suspect."

When FOX61 asked Urso what people should know about his client, he answered, "He’s a very hard-working family man and he just wants to get this [expletive] show behind him.”

Fotis Dulos Pressed Witness To Destroy Evidence: Court Testimony

Pawel Gumienny, a former employee of the late Fotis Dulos, testified Tuesday in the Michelle Troconis trial.

patch.com

2/7/24

Gumienny said Fotis Dulos also asked him to write down his whereabouts around the time Jennifer Dulos disappeared, but he refused.

“I was surprised," Gumienny said. “I told him, ‘What am I going to do? If police is going to come over and ask me, I’m going to pull out a piece of paper and read it to them?’ ”

Thanks for putting these details here about PG and his working with the police for so long as I think the history of PG working with police and being an actual cooperator with the State is super important and highly relevant to this farce of a discussion of MT as a potential 'cooperator'. I really wish that Atty Colangelo had said more about the PG situation in his testimony. Overall I was hugely disappointed in the Colangelo testimony and IDK why he was not crystal clear about the idea that MT was not a candidate for cooperation agreement following her lies on top of lies. I hope that if we hear from Det. Kimball that he puts a HUGE PIN into the resources devoted to proving out the MT many lies and that he also explains her wasting police resources with her trips into the woods to 'look for Jennifer'.

I simply am baffled by MT attorneys and the Clown show attorney Fitzgerald believing that MT would have been a viable candidate for a cooperation agreement after it was clear she was lying and kept reading off the alibi script. Even if she had gotten an agreement at any point, after the investigation proved out the details of Dulos and Troconis lies then any agreement would have been voided by the many MT lies. To me, the issue here is that MT knew precisely what she was saying and that what she was saying was untrue and absolutely fabricated to hinder and deceive police and prosecutors (I don't believe the language issue was significant enough to preclude her understanding) and that her level of involvement in all that happened absolutely precluded her ever being able to tell the truth. There was NO MYSTERY why she was unable to testify under oath at her trial. It enraged me that Judge Randolph gave her the ability to plea on her own behalf after not choosing to testify under oath as this process simply gave her yet another platform for her pathological imo lying to protect herself as her default reaction to being under attack. I am reminded by the words of the MT daughter at the impact statement hearing about her mother and I do think that the MT daughter cared more about her mother than her mother EVER CARED ABOUT HER. I hope this fact is not lost ever as the MT attorneys had the absolute audacity to put forward the LIE yet again that MT was threatened with never seeing her daughter again. This LIE was made plain in the hearing which was good but what wasnt good was that imo the entire issue of MT uprooting her young daughter from Miami to move to CT to live with a man who had lied about the status of his divorce not just once but persistently but also lied about his wealth, was not made a clear. MT knew the divorce was not 'amicable' as it became clear quickly that it wasn't, but yet she stayed and yet she herself visited the probate court to find out details of the Farber wealth and any possible provisions for the 5 Dulos children as her great greed and that of her co conspirator Dulos was imo crystal clear.

I wish we could see the report from the forensic psychologist hired by Bowman! I think Bowman hiring this professional to try and answer his many questions about MT made alot of sense and I believe it shows him being concerned about MT in general and her basic capacity to tell the truth.

The idea that Bowman can effectively be criticized and potentially discredited by an unknown local attorney simply because he believed his client and advocated on her behalf is something about this entire habeas action process that I do not understand. Bowman believed his client (clearly an error on his part but police believed MT for a time too (as did Colangelo) until it was clear she was lying and then lying about prior lies!

A cooperation agreement is not a forgone conclusion and it makes me uncomfortable to see this assumption be the default of the MT legal team and Atty Fitzpatrick. MT legal team is almost making the assumption that MT DESERVED a cooperation agreement! I find this simply mind blowing and was glad to see Colangelo put a pin into this idea. Colangelo saw through MT quickly and charged accordingly as Bowman reminded everyone today that there were THREE arrest affidavits during the period of time he was MT Counsel.

If MT is a master manipulator and liar (I happen to believe she is world class in this regard but in no way as smart as she believes herself to be) then I believe that she would have done the same routine to any other attorney (not just Bowman) and I very much question if any of the Fitzgerald commentary with criticism of Bowman would have played out had Fitzgerald (rather than Bowman) been the attorney of MT at the time!? I don't think Fitzgerald would have made a proffer (verbal or otherwise) any differently than what Bowman represented to Collangelo and I do believe that had Fitzgerald pushed hard for a cooperation agreement that he would have been rebuffed by Collangelo as what police wanted at the time was the body of JF and MT didn't seem inclined to produce this information. All bets were off after the Dulos suicide and Colangelo was clear about this issue as was Bowman.

I think another reason I'm struggling with this current farce is that MT chose to not follow the advice of Bowman and she did not tell the truth. Further, she made no later claims as to being victim of coercive control to explain her lies and ongoing support of Dulos.

I do wish that the suppression ruling had been appealed by the State as I believe Judge Randolph did not fully understand the exigent circumstances present at the time (due to his bias against CSP) and I do wish that those hearings had been made public or made transcripts fully available to the public as I don't think they were. This lack of transparency around this important issue imo was huge fault of not only Judge Randolph but the State Prosecutor. Schoenhorn also was effectively allowed to bully Det. Kimball for over 2 years with no pushback or surrport from Judge Randolph as it was clear imo that Judge Randolph was no fan of the CSP and this tainted the trial for me in a major way and also had me questioning Judge Randolph on the topic of bias. The final sentencing decision by Judge Randolph with the concurrent ruling confirmed his bias as well imo and this was further confirmed by his allowing the impact statement circus that he did as I believe he sadly believed the BS that was spewed that day from the church folks from the church were MT and her mother went briefly to court support. Its a miracle that 14.5 years sentence even happened and so to see this convicted felon not appreciating her 'gift' of a sentence is simply imo another example of her entitlement and absolute disconnection from reality.

 

[Niner]

I guess we pick up on Tuesday with cross of Fitzgerald.

So - Tuesday the 13th is next & NOT 1/16? I tried accessing the articles that were posted but could not get into any of them - I have ad blocker - so did not want to turn that off...

TIA !

 

[pernickety]

So - Tuesday the 13th is next & NOT 1/16? I tried accessing the articles that were posted but could not get into any of them - I have ad blocker - so did not want to turn that off...

TIA !

"The habeas trial resumed around 11 a.m. Friday in state Superior Court in the Rockville section of Vernon, and will continue on Tuesday with the cross-examination of Fitzpatrick. The trial was originally slated to last three days but Bowman's testimony took up the first day-and-a-half. The trial is also slated to take place on Jan. 16.
Judge Carl Schuman then will have 120 days to issue a ruling on whether Troconis had ineffective counsel. If the ruling is that her counsel was ineffective, the judge must also decide what the remedy would be, which may include vacating her conviction and could result in a second trial."

Above is copied from article in Greenwich Time today.

 

[Eli9]

"The habeas trial resumed around 11 a.m. Friday in state Superior Court in the Rockville section of Vernon, and will continue on Tuesday with the cross-examination of Fitzpatrick. The trial was originally slated to last three days but Bowman's testimony took up the first day-and-a-half. The trial is also slated to take place on Jan. 16.
Judge Carl Schuman then will have 120 days to issue a ruling on whether Troconis had ineffective counsel. If the ruling is that her counsel was ineffective, the judge must also decide what the remedy would be, which may include vacating her conviction and could result in a second trial."

Above is copied from article in Greenwich Time today.

I know I am biased but I can't imagine a scenario where her conviction is vacated. Her lies have been well established during the original trial as well as this habeas petition.

 

[pernickety]

I wish we could see the report from the forensic psychologist hired by Bowman! I think Bowman hiring this professional to try and answer his many questions about MT made alot of sense and I believe it shows him being concerned about MT in general and her basic capacity to tell the truth.

I got the impression that the consultation didn't actually take place, because interrupted by LE arriving to arrest her?

 

[Niner]

"The habeas trial resumed around 11 a.m. Friday in state Superior Court in the Rockville section of Vernon, and will continue on Tuesday with the cross-examination of Fitzpatrick. The trial was originally slated to last three days but Bowman's testimony took up the first day-and-a-half. The trial is also slated to take place on Jan. 16.
Judge Carl Schuman then will have 120 days to issue a ruling on whether Troconis had ineffective counsel. If the ruling is that her counsel was ineffective, the judge must also decide what the remedy would be, which may include vacating her conviction and could result in a second trial."

Above is copied from article in Greenwich Time today.

Thanks a bunch!

 

[Mysticeilis]

Lawyer Lee who followed the original trial apparently has been following the Habeas testimony. Haven't watched this but am putting it here for any that might be interested. I generally enjoy Lawyer Lees takes on legal procedure at trial but imo she was late to the entire Dulos/Troconis case and so didn't have the full history and imo this impacted her trial takes. JMO.

I’m half way through watching - Lawyer Lee is making some interesting comments that have helped me understand this “trial” (in other states it’s called a “hearing”). I’m getting a kick out of some of the comments posted - you sure can tell which ones are being typed by MT’s family members🫩!

 

[citygirl]

GIfted link

https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/ct-michelle-troconis-habeas-trial-dulos-live-21284077.php?utm_source=marketing&utm_medium=copy-url-link&utm_campaign=article-share&hash=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY3RpbnNpZGVyLmNvbS9uZXdzL2FydGljbGUvY3QtbWljaGVsbGUtdHJvY29uaXMtaGFiZWFzLXRyaWFsLWR1bG9zLWxpdmUtMjEyODQwNzcucGhw&time=MTc2ODAxMTQwNzM3OA%3D%3D&rid=ZmM0MTBhYWUtNzE0Yy00NWViLTgwZTMtZTBjMDJlMGNhNGE1&sharecount=MA%3D%3D

Thank you.

 

[waldojabba]

Thank you.

Sure. I was not able to watch the proceeding - so the article seemed to layout the jist of the expert witness' testimoney.

My take away from the press is that Fitzgerald, the expert witness, thinks Bowman fell down on his duty by allowing Michi to talk. Has he met Michi? That woman believes she can talk or "hula" her way out of everything.

Bowman told her she was under no obligation to talk to LE and that if she did talk to them she needed to be honest. She told him she was innocent and he believed her. Michi steam rolls over everything that gets in her way. Michi does not follow advice or rules.

Was he supposed to hit her over the head and restrain her ?

To me, it does seem obvious from watching Bowman, that he and Mich (the Troconis clan) are not a personal match made in heaven. Bowman is articulate, knowledgable and reasonable. Mich and fam not so much.Totally opposite - Hands flying, drama drama, lies. But that's not at issue.

Bowman advised her acurately and she made her decisions.

She probably thinks Bowman needed to be more in her face like Shoehorn with his constant repetition of the same thing over and over. She definitely got the right respresentation from Bowman. Michi is the one who torpeod her case by lying against Bowmans wishes. The torpedo that really squashed her though was her beloved Fotis leaving her holding the bag.

Bowman was not an ineffective lawyer. Mich made bad decisions. He told her NOT to lie if she was going to talk, she lied continuously. She is accountable not Bowman

JMO

From the article:

"And Fitzpatrick said reasonably competent counsel would not have a client go in for a third interview.
“You can’t chase your losses,” he said. “You have to recognize that things have not gone well. A lot of damage has been done, and going in for a third time is not going to make it better.”
“To go in for a third interview, thinking you’re going to make everything right, is foolish,” he continued. “It’s just wishful thinking.”
“It’s part of the standard of care and it’s what lies at the heart of this case,” Fitzpatrick said. “This is why she got convicted.”
Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Russell C. Zentner objected to Fitzpatrick’s statement about why Troconis got convicted, and the judge said he would disregard the remark. "

 

[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 the issue is that what Fitzgerald is describing is 'perfect world scenario' as it relates to protection agreements from Prosecutors. The real world in CT and with Colangelo doesn't work precisely as described by Fitzgerald imo and frankly as he is local imo he should know better as he also knows Colangelo and has worked with him presumably many times in the past given their proximity in Fairfield County, CT.

Going back in time, put yourself into the shoes of Colangelo as his focus and the LE mandate was to find the body of JF and Colangelo knew he had a trio of parties (Dulos, MT and MW) along with PG that no doubt early diligence showed as being around at the time of the disappearance. Why would he give a cooperation agreement to any of the conspirators absent more information and hearing their stories or receiving a proffer from their respective attorneys?

We saw that PG worked with the police for a long time (iirc nearly 2 years - see post above from Megnut as they posted the specifics and I'm going from memory) prior to getting a formal agreement. PG attorney Urso spoke extensively about how this process played out for any that have questions about the timeline etc. For Fitzgerald or event MT/Mama Troconis to believe that the MT process for such a 'deal' would be a 'given' and immediately received is imo simply unrealistic given how Colangelo operated doing his job and working with involved defense attorneys. IMO we heard Bowman talk extensively about his working relationship with Colangelo over a long period of time and even though the relationship was by definition adversarial, there was trust on both sides. Clearly imo Atty Urso had a high level of trust with Colangelo as well as he expressed discomfort as to what his client had done with speaking extensively with police etc. AND YET, he worked with the process and protected his client and supervised the process and his client ultimately did receive some kind of agreement (I don't know if we the public ever heard whether it was a cooperation agreement or immunity etc.). But, my point is that in this case we have clear examples of how Colangelo worked with defense attorneys and that agreements were simply not handed out 'at will' or without extensive diligence by police and Colangelo.

I think what I find so offensive about this entire proceeding with Fitzgerald is that as a local attorney HE KNOWS HOW THINGS WORK and so for him to go to a textbook definition or ABA process guidelines or the preposterous introduction of the 'Collective wisdom of F. Lee Bailey) is imo quite simply the bridge too far. The defense attorneys in Southern CT (small group) all knew Colangelo and CSP and knew the drill.

I really do wonder over the course of Bowmans long history and ditto for Colangelo that they had ever run into a perp that chose the path of lying so extensively and then doubling down and lying about lies? I believe that even though Bowman didn't articulate the experience of MT clearly imo, I don't think he went the route of engaging a forensic psychologist ABSENT something in his gut and based on many years of dealing with people (many of whom have done horrific things) that had him questioning what he was seeing. Bowman knew he had been clear with MT/Mama Troconis about telling the truth and what the consequences would be for lying AND YET what he saw play out is MT on a death wish for failure and disqualification from a deal due to her decision to meet with police 3x and LIE and then LIE ABOUT THE LIES. This was no doubt a stunning turn of events for BOTH Bowman and Colangelo and so for Fitzgerald to claim otherwise is frankly imo absurd as most criminals/perps well understand the concept of self interest and the Fifth Amendment. I wonder if there is broader research on this topic of perp self sabotage from the academic world as the idea that MT/Mama Troconis thought the lying strategy would work was preposterous.

I wish we had access to the suppression hearing both for the interviews and the phone but so far as I know they were never public. I do wonder if they might be accessible via the appeal documents? I have to check. Judge Randolph imo had a clear bias as to the CSP and their actions and had zero hesitation about tossing the MT phone. BUT, Judge Randolph heard the arguments about tossing the interviews and DID NOT rule in favor of MT/Schoenhorn. Schoenhorn battled in hearings for months if I recall on both the interviews and the phone. While I do believe Judge Randolph had a bias against CSP, I believe he was a fair Judge and the fact that he had issues with CSP imo makes the argument stronger that the Judge knew that Bowman had done his job for his client fairly and within the guidelines of the rules of professional conduct.

So, if I had to pick a party to believe on the entire issue of the Bowman representation of MT then I would vote to believe Judge Randolph who had the benefit of looking at the entire file and not a $350/hr hired local attorney who merely spent 85 hrs looking at select elements of the record as to the Bowman representation of MT. I very much hope the Judge for the Habeas action has respect for Judge Randolph as imo I think the Judge Randolph record speaks for itself as being quite solid (and I say this as having issues not only with Judge Randolph but Judge White and Blawie on the phone issue as well as the handling of the Herman Report).

 

[Eli9]

Yes, but the issue is that what Fitzgerald is describing is 'perfect world scenario' as it relates to protection agreements from Prosecutors. The real world in CT and with Colangelo doesn't work precisely as described by Fitzgerald imo and frankly as he is local imo he should know better as he also knows Colangelo and has worked with him presumably many times in the past given their proximity in Fairfield County, CT.

Going back in time, put yourself into the shoes of Colangelo as his focus and the LE mandate was to find the body of JF and Colangelo knew he had a trio of parties (Dulos, MT and MW) along with PG that no doubt early diligence showed as being around at the time of the disappearance. Why would he give a cooperation agreement to any of the conspirators absent more information and hearing their stories or receiving a proffer from their respective attorneys?

We saw that PG worked with the police for a long time (iirc nearly 2 years - see post above from Megnut as they posted the specifics and I'm going from memory) prior to getting a formal agreement. PG attorney Urso spoke extensively about how this process played out for any that have questions about the timeline etc. For Fitzgerald or event MT/Mama Troconis to believe that the MT process for such a 'deal' would be a 'given' and immediately received is imo simply unrealistic given how Colangelo operated doing his job and working with involved defense attorneys. IMO we heard Bowman talk extensively about his working relationship with Colangelo over a long period of time and even though the relationship was by definition adversarial, there was trust on both sides. Clearly imo Atty Urso had a high level of trust with Colangelo as well as he expressed discomfort as to what his client had done with speaking extensively with police etc. AND YET, he worked with the process and protected his client and supervised the process and his client ultimately did receive some kind of agreement (I don't know if we the public ever heard whether it was a cooperation agreement or immunity etc.). But, my point is that in this case we have clear examples of how Colangelo worked with defense attorneys and that agreements were simply not handed out 'at will' or without extensive diligence by police and Colangelo.

I think what I find so offensive about this entire proceeding with Fitzgerald is that as a local attorney HE KNOWS HOW THINGS WORK and so for him to go to a textbook definition or ABA process guidelines or the preposterous introduction of the 'Collective wisdom of F. Lee Bailey) is imo quite simply the bridge too far. The defense attorneys in Southern CT (small group) all knew Colangelo and CSP and knew the drill.

I really do wonder over the course of Bowmans long history and ditto for Colangelo that they had ever run into a perp that chose the path of lying so extensively and then doubling down and lying about lies? I believe that even though Bowman didn't articulate the experience of MT clearly imo, I don't think he went the route of engaging a forensic psychologist ABSENT something in his gut and based on many years of dealing with people (many of whom have done horrific things) that had him questioning what he was seeing. Bowman knew he had been clear with MT/Mama Troconis about telling the truth and what the consequences would be for lying AND YET what he saw play out is MT on a death wish for failure and disqualification from a deal due to her decision to meet with police 3x and LIE and then LIE ABOUT THE LIES. This was no doubt a stunning turn of events for BOTH Bowman and Colangelo and so for Fitzgerald to claim otherwise is frankly imo absurd as most criminals/perps well understand the concept of self interest and the Fifth Amendment. I wonder if there is broader research on this topic of perp self sabotage from the academic world as the idea that MT/Mama Troconis thought the lying strategy would work was preposterous.

I wish we had access to the suppression hearing both for the interviews and the phone but so far as I know they were never public. I do wonder if they might be accessible via the appeal documents? I have to check. Judge Randolph imo had a clear bias as to the CSP and their actions and had zero hesitation about tossing the MT phone. BUT, Judge Randolph heard the arguments about tossing the interviews and DID NOT rule in favor of MT/Schoenhorn. Schoenhorn battled in hearings for months if I recall on both the interviews and the phone. While I do believe Judge Randolph had a bias against CSP, I believe he was a fair Judge and the fact that he had issues with CSP imo makes the argument stronger that the Judge knew that Bowman had done his job for his client fairly and within the guidelines of the rules of professional conduct.

So, if I had to pick a party to believe on the entire issue of the Bowman representation of MT then I would vote to believe Judge Randolph who had the benefit of looking at the entire file and not a $350/hr hired local attorney who merely spent 85 hrs looking at select elements of the record as to the Bowman representation of MT. I very much hope the Judge for the Habeas action has respect for Judge Randolph as imo I think the Judge Randolph record speaks for itself as being quite solid (and I say this as having issues not only with Judge Randolph but Judge White and Blawie on the phone issue as well as the handling of the Herman Report).

omg I never said that I agree with his tactics just what they were

 

[BJarv]

no way I would remember these $s off the top of my head if I were him

I think you might if you were a practitioner WHO IS ALL ABOUT THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR! I hate to say it but this Fitzgerald seems like a total 'pay for play character'! I really now wonder why Judge Randolph dismissed the Fitzgerald testimony from the supression hearing. I might just suck it up and go through the record (was hoping to avoid doing this) to figure this out as at the time none of the proceedings were public iirc and so we didn't hear much about it. We just heard that the phone was out and the interviews were in.

 

[BJarv]

omg I never said that I agree with his tactics just what they were

I know!! Just wanted to clarify the situation as I recalled it from memory for those that might not have been here or remembered it. No worries, you reply was perfect. I just reply to clarify my memories from long ago on this trial and I did not mean to upset etc. All is good, this is just me working with my feeble brain!

 

[BJarv]

So - Tuesday the 13th is next & NOT 1/16? I tried accessing the articles that were posted but could not get into any of them - I have ad blocker - so did not want to turn that off...

TIA !

Here are some free links:

http://archive.today/2026.01.10-183558/https://www.middletownpress.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-habeas-trial-jennifer-dulos-21279054.php

 

[Niner]

Here are some free links:

http://archive.today/2026.01.10-183558/https://www.middletownpress.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-habeas-trial-jennifer-dulos-21279054.php

Thanks - I added that link to my notes for Bowman's testimony.

 

[Eli9]

I know!! Just wanted to clarify the situation as I recalled it from memory for those that might not have been here or remembered it. No worries, you reply was perfect. I just reply to clarify my memories from long ago on this trial and I did not mean to upset etc. All is good, this is just me working with my feeble brain!

No offense taken but I do need to put my 'be more rational' hat on and go touch grass soon.

 

[pernickety]

I wish we could see the report from the forensic psychologist hired by Bowman! I think Bowman hiring this professional to try and answer his many questions about MT made alot of sense and I believe it shows him being concerned about MT in general and her basic capacity to tell the truth.

Michelle Troconis says her old lawyer didn't warn her of risks in Jennifer Dulos case

Troconis and her team are arguing that her former attorney's advice led to flawed police interviews after her 2019 arrest connected to Jennifer Dulos' disappearance.

www.fox61.com

"Neuropsychologist," not forensic psychologist. Possibly to test her memory in general?

 

[Jmoose]

Yes, but the issue is that what Fitzgerald is describing is 'perfect world scenario' as it relates to protection agreements from Prosecutors. The real world in CT and with Colangelo doesn't work precisely as described by Fitzgerald imo and frankly as he is local imo he should know better as he also knows Colangelo and has worked with him presumably many times in the past given their proximity in Fairfield County, CT.

Going back in time, put yourself into the shoes of Colangelo as his focus and the LE mandate was to find the body of JF and Colangelo knew he had a trio of parties (Dulos, MT and MW) along with PG that no doubt early diligence showed as being around at the time of the disappearance. Why would he give a cooperation agreement to any of the conspirators absent more information and hearing their stories or receiving a proffer from their respective attorneys?

We saw that PG worked with the police for a long time (iirc nearly 2 years - see post above from Megnut as they posted the specifics and I'm going from memory) prior to getting a formal agreement. PG attorney Urso spoke extensively about how this process played out for any that have questions about the timeline etc. For Fitzgerald or event MT/Mama Troconis to believe that the MT process for such a 'deal' would be a 'given' and immediately received is imo simply unrealistic given how Colangelo operated doing his job and working with involved defense attorneys. IMO we heard Bowman talk extensively about his working relationship with Colangelo over a long period of time and even though the relationship was by definition adversarial, there was trust on both sides. Clearly imo Atty Urso had a high level of trust with Colangelo as well as he expressed discomfort as to what his client had done with speaking extensively with police etc. AND YET, he worked with the process and protected his client and supervised the process and his client ultimately did receive some kind of agreement (I don't know if we the public ever heard whether it was a cooperation agreement or immunity etc.). But, my point is that in this case we have clear examples of how Colangelo worked with defense attorneys and that agreements were simply not handed out 'at will' or without extensive diligence by police and Colangelo.

I think what I find so offensive about this entire proceeding with Fitzgerald is that as a local attorney HE KNOWS HOW THINGS WORK and so for him to go to a textbook definition or ABA process guidelines or the preposterous introduction of the 'Collective wisdom of F. Lee Bailey) is imo quite simply the bridge too far. The defense attorneys in Southern CT (small group) all knew Colangelo and CSP and knew the drill.

I really do wonder over the course of Bowmans long history and ditto for Colangelo that they had ever run into a perp that chose the path of lying so extensively and then doubling down and lying about lies? I believe that even though Bowman didn't articulate the experience of MT clearly imo, I don't think he went the route of engaging a forensic psychologist ABSENT something in his gut and based on many years of dealing with people (many of whom have done horrific things) that had him questioning what he was seeing. Bowman knew he had been clear with MT/Mama Troconis about telling the truth and what the consequences would be for lying AND YET what he saw play out is MT on a death wish for failure and disqualification from a deal due to her decision to meet with police 3x and LIE and then LIE ABOUT THE LIES. This was no doubt a stunning turn of events for BOTH Bowman and Colangelo and so for Fitzgerald to claim otherwise is frankly imo absurd as most criminals/perps well understand the concept of self interest and the Fifth Amendment. I wonder if there is broader research on this topic of perp self sabotage from the academic world as the idea that MT/Mama Troconis thought the lying strategy would work was preposterous.

I wish we had access to the suppression hearing both for the interviews and the phone but so far as I know they were never public. I do wonder if they might be accessible via the appeal documents? I have to check. Judge Randolph imo had a clear bias as to the CSP and their actions and had zero hesitation about tossing the MT phone. BUT, Judge Randolph heard the arguments about tossing the interviews and DID NOT rule in favor of MT/Schoenhorn. Schoenhorn battled in hearings for months if I recall on both the interviews and the phone. While I do believe Judge Randolph had a bias against CSP, I believe he was a fair Judge and the fact that he had issues with CSP imo makes the argument stronger that the Judge knew that Bowman had done his job for his client fairly and within the guidelines of the rules of professional conduct.

So, if I had to pick a party to believe on the entire issue of the Bowman representation of MT then I would vote to believe Judge Randolph who had the benefit of looking at the entire file and not a $350/hr hired local attorney who merely spent 85 hrs looking at select elements of the record as to the Bowman representation of MT. I very much hope the Judge for the Habeas action has respect for Judge Randolph as imo I think the Judge Randolph record speaks for itself as being quite solid (and I say this as having issues not only with Judge Randolph but Judge White and Blawie on the phone issue as well as the handling of the Herman Report).

Did Bowman specifically warn her that if she lies, that could affect any immunity deal she might want, or did he simply say “you cannot lie”?

 

[Jmoose]

Yes, but the issue is that what Fitzgerald is describing is 'perfect world scenario' as it relates to protection agreements from Prosecutors. The real world in CT and with Colangelo doesn't work precisely as described by Fitzgerald imo and frankly as he is local imo he should know better as he also knows Colangelo and has worked with him presumably many times in the past given their proximity in Fairfield County, CT.

Going back in time, put yourself into the shoes of Colangelo as his focus and the LE mandate was to find the body of JF and Colangelo knew he had a trio of parties (Dulos, MT and MW) along with PG that no doubt early diligence showed as being around at the time of the disappearance. Why would he give a cooperation agreement to any of the conspirators absent more information and hearing their stories or receiving a proffer from their respective attorneys?

We saw that PG worked with the police for a long time (iirc nearly 2 years - see post above from Megnut as they posted the specifics and I'm going from memory) prior to getting a formal agreement. PG attorney Urso spoke extensively about how this process played out for any that have questions about the timeline etc. For Fitzgerald or event MT/Mama Troconis to believe that the MT process for such a 'deal' would be a 'given' and immediately received is imo simply unrealistic given how Colangelo operated doing his job and working with involved defense attorneys. IMO we heard Bowman talk extensively about his working relationship with Colangelo over a long period of time and even though the relationship was by definition adversarial, there was trust on both sides. Clearly imo Atty Urso had a high level of trust with Colangelo as well as he expressed discomfort as to what his client had done with speaking extensively with police etc. AND YET, he worked with the process and protected his client and supervised the process and his client ultimately did receive some kind of agreement (I don't know if we the public ever heard whether it was a cooperation agreement or immunity etc.). But, my point is that in this case we have clear examples of how Colangelo worked with defense attorneys and that agreements were simply not handed out 'at will' or without extensive diligence by police and Colangelo.

I think what I find so offensive about this entire proceeding with Fitzgerald is that as a local attorney HE KNOWS HOW THINGS WORK and so for him to go to a textbook definition or ABA process guidelines or the preposterous introduction of the 'Collective wisdom of F. Lee Bailey) is imo quite simply the bridge too far. The defense attorneys in Southern CT (small group) all knew Colangelo and CSP and knew the drill.

I really do wonder over the course of Bowmans long history and ditto for Colangelo that they had ever run into a perp that chose the path of lying so extensively and then doubling down and lying about lies? I believe that even though Bowman didn't articulate the experience of MT clearly imo, I don't think he went the route of engaging a forensic psychologist ABSENT something in his gut and based on many years of dealing with people (many of whom have done horrific things) that had him questioning what he was seeing. Bowman knew he had been clear with MT/Mama Troconis about telling the truth and what the consequences would be for lying AND YET what he saw play out is MT on a death wish for failure and disqualification from a deal due to her decision to meet with police 3x and LIE and then LIE ABOUT THE LIES. This was no doubt a stunning turn of events for BOTH Bowman and Colangelo and so for Fitzgerald to claim otherwise is frankly imo absurd as most criminals/perps well understand the concept of self interest and the Fifth Amendment. I wonder if there is broader research on this topic of perp self sabotage from the academic world as the idea that MT/Mama Troconis thought the lying strategy would work was preposterous.

I wish we had access to the suppression hearing both for the interviews and the phone but so far as I know they were never public. I do wonder if they might be accessible via the appeal documents? I have to check. Judge Randolph imo had a clear bias as to the CSP and their actions and had zero hesitation about tossing the MT phone. BUT, Judge Randolph heard the arguments about tossing the interviews and DID NOT rule in favor of MT/Schoenhorn. Schoenhorn battled in hearings for months if I recall on both the interviews and the phone. While I do believe Judge Randolph had a bias against CSP, I believe he was a fair Judge and the fact that he had issues with CSP imo makes the argument stronger that the Judge knew that Bowman had done his job for his client fairly and within the guidelines of the rules of professional conduct.

So, if I had to pick a party to believe on the entire issue of the Bowman representation of MT then I would vote to believe Judge Randolph who had the benefit of looking at the entire file and not a $350/hr hired local attorney who merely spent 85 hrs looking at select elements of the record as to the Bowman representation of MT. I very much hope the Judge for the Habeas action has respect for Judge Randolph as imo I think the Judge Randolph record speaks for itself as being quite solid (and I say this as having issues not only with Judge Randolph but Judge White and Blawie on the phone issue as well as the handling of the Herman Report).

Didn’t F. Lee Bailey lose his license to practice law? Why would he cite Bailey, for any reason at all?