Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #29

[SkylarSid]

Me, three....I feel her presence, however.

Energy forward...spread a little justice for the Jennifer and the rest of the Farbers!

I am sure she will be back soon with lots of input!!! Can't wait.

 

[Myvice]

Would a marriage clause actually work? I wouldn't think she would be exempt from discussing what happened before they were married. But, IANAL and I have no clue.

 

[Morgan10028]

I will go back and look but my remembrance is that LE tried to get MT to recall what she was doing and she said she 'might have' gone to pick up her daughter. But just to avoid confusion I will look now and report back. I had thought that Atty Weinstein made his statement perhaps based on the work of his PI staff who no doubt have better/more complete info on the MT timeline than we have at this point. MOO

Just to make it easy...(I also had it already open in a tab)

 

[NDreu]

Would a marriage clause actually work? I wouldn't think she would be exempt from discussing what happened before they were married. But, IANAL and I have no clue.

From State of CT.gov website:
The husband - wife privilege against the disclosure of confidential communications is a common-law rule of evidence. However, the state Supreme Court has made it clear that the legislature has the power to modify the rule. State v. James, 211 Conn. 555, 560-62 (1989).

The common-law rule was first explicitly stated in State v. Littlejohn, 199 Conn. 631 (1986). In recognizing the rule, the court referred to what it called the sound policy underlying privileged-communication rules, as expressed by Wignore on Evidence:


(1) The communications originate in confidence, (2) the confidence is essential to the relationship, (3) the relationship is a proper object of encouragement by the law, and (4) the injury that would inure to [the relationship] by disclosure is probably greater than the benefit that would result in the judicial investigation of the truth.

The privilege applies in both civil and criminal cases. Tate and Laplant, Handbook of Connecticut Evidence, § 12.6.1.

Case law is not clear as to who may waive the privilege. Tate and LaPlant, supra § 12.6.6, argue that only the communicating spouse can do so since the privilege is based on the policy of encouraging communication. In other words, if a man tells his wife something in confidence, it should be up to him to decide whether it has to remain in confidence. Or, to take the example from the Littlejohn case, if a husband tells his wife that he killed someone, that communication is privileged and, lacking the husband's consent, it is error to allow the wife to testify as to what her husband said. All communications between husband and wife are presumed to be confidential, but the presumption can be overcome by proof of facts showing that the communications were not intended to be private, such as making the communication in the presence of a third party, Littlejohn, supra,quoting Pereira v. U.S., 347 U.S. 1 (1954).

The privilege applies to communications made while married, and the communications remain privileged even if the marriage ends through divorce or death of the communicating spouse. Tate and LaPlant, supra.

There are only two exceptions to the privilege. One is in child abuse cases under CGS § 17a-101 concerning mandatory reporting of suspected abuse and intervention by the Department of Childrena and Families. That statute states that "the privilege against the disclosure of communications between husband and wife shall be inapplicable and either may testify as to any relevant matter." CGS § 17a-101 (f)(3). This provision was included as part of a major revision of the abuse-reporting statue in 1971 (PA 71-216).

The other exception is under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, CGS § 46b-203, which states: "Laws attaching a privilege against the disclosure of communications between husband and wife are inapplicable to proceedings under this part."

A related statue is § 54-84a, "Privilege of Spouse," which overcame the early common-law rule that a spouse was not a competent witness. The statute gives the witness spouse the option of testifying either for or against a defendant spouse in a criminal trial--except for certain crimes, in which cases the spouse can be compelled to testify. Those crimes are: any personal violence against the witness spouse, risk of injury to a minor (53-21), cruelty to persons (53-20), abandonment of a child (53-22), criminal nonsupport (53-304), first or second degree sexual assault (53a-70,-70a, -71), and promoting prostitution (53a-83 to -88).

A witness - spouse being compelled to testify under the spousal-privilege statute could, presumably, still refuse to testify as to confidential communications. The Connecticut courts have not directly addressed this issue. In State v. Saia, 172 Conn. 37, 44 (1976), the defendant raised the issue but the Supreme Court declined to address the argument because the defendant had failed to properly raise the claim at trial.

DOC:tjo
Husband - Wife Privilege

 

[NDreu]

Just to make it easy...(I also had it already open in a tab)

Yes, Atty Weinstein concludes MT went to pick up her daughter after the car wash. My reading of the AW2 language is that MT did not answer the question clearly about what she did after the car wash. I read the AW to have MT saying she EITHER went home OR picked up her daughter. To me this is vague and a non answer and is consistent with how MT seemed to respond to most of the questions put to her in AW2.

I assumed (maybe wrongly IDK) that Atty Weinstein had better info than AW2. IDK that he does have better answer that AW? So, not sure what to think. All we have are MT words in AW2. MOO

 

[Megnut]

Only someone who can't remember a detailed but concocted alibi script, would struggle to remember if picking up her child was in the script or not, making that a difficult question to answer. The TRUTH is never hard to remember.

I wonder if they had all eight passports lined up in a cute row. For a very Brady, one-way tickets vacation to Greece.

I detest everything FD did, but I am double repulsed by what some women are willing to do to other women. That is one cold heart.

MOO

 

[kimch33kim]

The marriage after her Gaston fling was to a
racing motorcycle rider who was seriously injured in a bike accident. Don't recall if she
married him before or after the accident, but
if I recall he had very serious long term injuries, as in physically and maybe mentally
impaired. It was an odd pairing IMO.

His face and body was severely burned due to a government aircraft which landed on him. He also has some fingers missing and he got a huge settlement from the airplane accident. I think thats what MT saw in him, nothing else $$_$$

 

[Morgan10028]

Yes, Atty Weinstein concludes MT went to pick up her daughter after the car wash. My reading of the AW2 language is that MT did not answer the question clearly about what she did after the car wash. I read the AW to have MT saying she EITHER went home OR picked up her daughter. To me this is vague and a non answer and is consistent with how MT seemed to respond to most of the questions put to her in AW2.

I assumed (maybe wrongly IDK) that Atty Weinstein had better info than AW2. IDK that he does have better answer that AW? So, not sure what to think. All we have are MT words in AW2. MOO

Agreed that her answer was vague and MT didn't really answer the question! The Weinstein motion appears to solely refer to AW2 though as far as this statement is concerned. I also haven't heard LE confirm her actual movements on May 24th, though I think I quickly read your OP as LE not mentioning it at all (and me thinking it was in the AW, so in some way LE mentioned it). Am I making any sense ?

 

[enelram]

His face and body was severely burned due to a government aircraft which landed on him. He also has some fingers missing and he got a huge settlement from the airplane accident. I think thats what MT saw in him, nothing else $$_$$

Thanks for clarifying. So did she marry him after the accident?

 

[kimch33kim]

Agreed that her answer was vague and MT didn't really answer the question! The Weinstein motion appears to solely refer to AW2 though as far as this statement is concerned. I also haven't heard LE confirm her actual movements on May 24th, though I think I quickly read your OP as LE not mentioning it at all (and me thinking it was in the AW, so in some way LE mentioned it). Am I making any sense ?

Maybe Weinstein's own PI found out that piece of information.

 

[NDreu]

Maybe Weinstein's own PI found out that piece of information.

Yes, that is what I figured as Atty Weinstein no doubt has a full timeline of MT movements on the 24th and no doubt more info than we have which is only AW2. MOO

 

[NDreu]

His face and body was severely burned due to a government aircraft which landed on him. He also has some fingers missing and he got a huge settlement from the airplane accident. I think thats what MT saw in him, nothing else $$_$$

The only piece of information which I believe we saw on the divorce was that HE filed for the divorce and not MT. Has anyone been successful in locating the divorce paperwork? It would be interesting to see if there was any financial settlement as its somewhat unclear how MT was able to afford the Vail Condo (even though it was purchased with biodad Begue). MOO

 

[Morgan10028]

Maybe Weinstein's own PI found out that piece of information.

Definitely a possibility, though he referenced a page and AW2 in his motion. Maybe just to stay under the radar on what he knows?
MOO

 

[Jmoose]

Truly the legal issues associated with the overall JF situation are daunting. Given the circumstances though I hope that the State is working with GF representatives to manage the situation as the issues involved can have long term consequences and most clearly impact the children, who are the primary concern IMO.

Its been puzzling to see MT legal maneuvers play out (or not) in civil court and criminal court. We have zero indication that she is 'playing ball' with the State and there is also no indication that any kind of 'cooperating agreement is in place' which may or may not be a concern. I also wonder if Atty. Norman Pattis is directing the MT defense as well as its likely he and his tactics might have more in common with MT and Mama A vs Atty Bowman. In the Bareth case it seemed like the cooperation agreement process moved relatively quickly but we aren't seeing that in the Dulos case. I continue to wonder why MT seems to maintaining silence and its baffling why more charges weren't added to the existing charges for her lying to LE for over 2 months. My guess is that Mama A. is in charge of the process of 'saving' MT and not Atty Bowman and I do wonder if Mama A believes that a possible 'marriage' to FD might solve her daughters legal issues? I'm not so sure, but Mama A is a manipulator of the system and almost convicted felon herself and operates on a whole different level so at this point I guess we have to wait and see what scam/plan she devises to 'save' MT.

As we have seen, legal matters move in slow mo in CT Courts, so I'm not certain that termination of parental right won't hit the radar as an issue later rather than sooner. GF is in her 80s and believed to be in good health, but my guess is that she would want this issue resolved in short order. Clearly other issues have to be resolved before this happens, but the risk of FD accessing the children in person or any of their assets has to a primary consideration for the next legal moves by the GF Family Court legal team IMO. The Family Court records show the profound adverse impact that FD has had on his children and the potential psychological damage associated with his involvement with the children at any level could be devastating. We have heard zero about any 'appeal' by FD and Atty. R to the custody award to GF so either it wasn't filed or we haven't heard about it.

MOO

I also think that a marriage between these two mutts is possible (maybe even likely), but it seems to me as though this is more likely to save FD than it is to save MT. He has much, much more to lose, IMO, if she rats on him than she does if he rats on her. And at some point, they may find evidence that makes her testimony, unreliable as it may be, irrelevant. Then these antics are likely to p-o the court and the jurors. MOO

 

[MDATCA]

Yes, Atty Weinstein concludes MT went to pick up her daughter after the car wash. My reading of the AW2 language is that MT did not answer the question clearly about what she did after the car wash. I read the AW to have MT saying she EITHER went home OR picked up her daughter. To me this is vague and a non answer and is consistent with how MT seemed to respond to most of the questions put to her in AW2.

I assumed (maybe wrongly IDK) that Atty Weinstein had better info than AW2. IDK that he does have better answer that AW? So, not sure what to think. All we have are MT words in AW2. MOO

Which day is in question? May 24 or the carwash day which was the following Tuesday. The answers may differ and be confusing to us because parts of the warrants are missing.

 

[MDATCA]

They can't get married as Fo already is. JF has not been declared legally dead and they were not divorced. So until a body is found or she is legally declared dead they can't marry unless he wants to add bigamy to his list of crimes.

 

[Alathea]

Yes, Atty Weinstein concludes MT went to pick up her daughter after the car wash. My reading of the AW2 language is that MT did not answer the question clearly about what she did after the car wash. I read the AW to have MT saying she EITHER went home OR picked up her daughter. To me this is vague and a non answer and is consistent with how MT seemed to respond to most of the questions put to her in AW2.

I assumed (maybe wrongly IDK) that Atty Weinstein had better info than AW2. IDK that he does have better answer that AW? So, not sure what to think. All we have are MT words in AW2. MOO

According to page 2 of Weinstein's motion, MT "told investigators" - I assume LE - that she "drove back with Dulos to Farmington, stopped at the bank, went to the car wash at which she dropped of [sic] Dulos, and drove back to pick up her daughter." (bbm)

However, didn't we learn afterwards that she didn't actually drop off Dulos at the car wash and drive right back - she went to the car wash, too, right? Please correct me if not so.

And this may mean that Weinstein is believing her initial word on this (her lying to law enforcement).

If correct, why did she lie about this?

So the 'picking up her daughter' part might just be yet another lie to LE. To cover up the fact that she knew how important that car washing was? Or - ? Was there more about her daughter - someone else picked her up, or she stayed later at school (because MT knew she had to do things that day)?

Because if she had arranged another pickup for her daughter, it shows former knowledge/planning of what she was doing that day.

ETA last 2 paragraphs

 

[MsJosie]

They can't get married as Fo already is. JF has not been declared legally dead and they were not divorced. So until a body is found or she is legally declared dead they can't marry unless he wants to add bigamy to his list of crimes.

Is there a time frame to wait, like 7 years, to declare someone dead if there is no body?

 

[NDreu]

Regarding Mawhinney being copied on motions:

It would seem he cannot be copied after Halloween, as he's going to turn into a pumpkin - that is, he will be dissolving his practice.

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Former-Fotis-Dulos-attorney-accused-of-spousal-14272055.php
In the motion, David Markowitz and Mawhinney stated their practice will be dissolved on Oct. 31. They also cited Markowitz’s age of 71 and Mawhinney’s interest to pursue immigration law as reasons for their withdrawal from the case.

Yes, but it is believed that KM has already set up his own office and new practice. Atty Markowitz has been subpoenaed by the Civil Case to provide various documents related to FD real estate activities and supposedly has moved the files to another (presumed different from prior practice) location. MOO

 

[Alathea]

Is there a time frame to wait, like 7 years, to declare someone dead if there is no body?

I believe the national standard is 7 years, but states can have their own rules about this (and, after searching, I did not find CT's specific rules on this).