Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #30

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #841
New from SA...

Attorney for Jennifer Dulos’ mother: Troconis making a ‘mockery’ of deposition

An attorney representing Jennifer Dulos’ mother said Michelle Troconis is making “a mockery” of her court-ordered deposition by invoking her Fifth Amendment rights on a “wholesale basis” during questioning.

In the latest of a series of legal filings by each of the attorneys involved, Richard Weinstein, who represents Gloria Farber, urged the court to “compel” Troconis to answer questions in the civil lawsuits against her former boyfriend, Fotis Dulos.

Weinstein contends Troconis could have valuable information pertaining to the business dealings of Fotis Dulos’ real estate development company, Fore Group.

Bowman is seeking to avoid having his client provide answers during a deposition on her former boyfriend’s finances because he fears it could incriminate her in the criminal proceedings.

“The sole purpose in pursuing the same (the other returns) was and is an attempt to ascertain the net worth of the Farbers and efforts to otherwise utilize said information in regard to the then pending divorce,” Weinstein said.

Attorney for Jennifer Dulos’ mother: Troconis making a ‘mockery’ of deposition
Cheshire man accused of killing his wife wants to see his child



Hoping for favorable rulings from Judge Noble on plaintiffs’ outstanding motions, including motion for reconsideration on his ruling on NP’s motion to quash. See above NH Register article on NP new client, Cheshire def accused of wife’s murder. Notice the way this is worded: “The attorney, Norman Pattis, who has been hired in place of the public defender who initially represented the defendant…” So defendant qualified for a public defender (presumably on his financial filings) and presumably a salaried public defender represented him at first. Then “Norman Pattis, who has been hired” in place of that public defender…” Author Randall Beach doesn’t say the def hired NP, that the def retained NP, suddenly having found the funds to do so. So who hired NP—the State of CT, as an “off-contract” special public defender with public funds? NP is a really special spd—no contract to bid for, no annual questionnaire to fill out re whether an ethics committee ever found probable cause of misconduct against him. Particularly disturbing in light of NP’s recent appearance at the Statewide Grievance Committee hearing to face serious probable cause charges (not reported anywhere in the press that I could find). Oh, NP also used to write for the NHR. Pals with RB?
 
  • #842
Agreed as to MT being boring. Yeah, her muppet sweater is definitely unravelling and FD is NOT impressed. FD said so himself back in 2015: "Men (I) like to solve things, and women (for whom I have contempt) like to be heard. We do both - solve problems and listen (when I get paid $ to do so, otherwise, no, I don't read your Insta because it is boring and dreary and stupid. I went to good schools and so did Jennifer, a smart woman who made the cut)." Quote edited for clarity.

MT, you have a problem: you are the fall guy. Can you solve it?

MOO. IMO.
hey @pandaknows...can you please PM me? I have a question :)
 
  • #843
Attorney for Jennifer Dulos’ mother: Troconis making a ‘mockery’ of deposition
Weinstein said Jennifer Dulos was made the beneficiary of a trust in 2012, but said any documents related to the trust have no bearing in the lawsuits since the loans were made to Fotis Dulos’ company.

AND

Weinstein said any other attempt to gain access to previous returns will be used against the family in the divorce proceedings.


Mmmm. FD trying to squeeze money out of JD estate. Since he says she is merely missing, maybe he can try for a default divorce judgment. I wonder how the tax returns can be used against the Farbers in the divorce? CT divorce laws are surprisingly generous when it comes to distributing inheritance and what is usually considered separate property in most states.

The SA article made the following statement:
"Bowman is seeking to avoid having his client provide answers during a deposition on her former boyfriend’s finances because he fears it could incriminate her in the criminal proceedings".

Going back to the filings in the Civil Case between Attys Bowman and Weinstein, IMO Atty Bowman had multiple issues about MT deposition. IMO he was concerned about incriminating testimony impacting the criminal proceeding (tampering/hindering) which I had believed was addressed by Atty Weinstein agreeing NOT to incorporate questioning regarding that matter. BUT, Atty Bowman also expressed concern that MT testimony in the Civil Case COULD POSSIBLY RESULT IN OTHER CRIMINAL CHARGES BEING BROUGHT AGAINST MT.

Atty. Bowman previously seemed to have a working arrangement with Atty Weinstein on the MT deposition and then for some reason he totally backed off that agreement and his client invoked her 5th amendment response on all questioning. IMO I don't believe things were supposed to work this way and I very much wonder what might have happened?

My suspicions include the following (as a start....):
  • MT hadn't fully briefed Atty Bowman on the extent of her "activities" at FORE Group so he wasn't aware of the risks of her speaking on any matters relating to FORE/FD.
  • MT role in the $75,000 loan to purchase the smaller house using funds from FD/FORE put her in the cross hairs of 'bank fraud', 'wire fraud' and other assorted crimes possibly associated with assisting FD hide assets in the divorce action. We saw the Bank Officer from Farmington Bank/now Peoples Bank take the 5th when deposed on this transaction in Family Court. My guess is that this entire situation will be resurrected in the form of a possible federal action against MT as she appeared to be the conduit in this matter between FD and the house purchaser and looked to be directly involved with the Bank Officer as well.
  • MT possible role in preparing FD/FORE financial statements either for bank purposes or FC purposes could also put her in the cross hairs of charges related to 'fraud' if she knowingly made false statements. We know from FC documents that there was a sizeable discrepancy between the financial statements presented to the banks for loan purposes and those presented to FC for purposes of assessing FD ability to make support payments for the 5 children. As we know, the FC never made much progress on the assessment of FD finances for purposes of supporting his children.
  • MT most likely was involved with marketing and selling phases of the various FORE properties. We do not know if perhaps there was any misrepresentation that might have happened along the way.
  • MT might also have been involved in making payments to sub contractors using FORE funds and this could be potentially problematic on any number of levels.
  • MT and FD could potentially have used FORE as a shell to conduct other activities not yet publicly known and also potentially used FORE funds to purchase other real estate not in the name of FD or FORE.
This list could IMO go on endlessly and this is why having MT deposed is so important to the Weinstein case. My guess is that MT and FD never believed the situation would come to where it is today which IMO was a gross miscalculation on their parts.

Atty Bowman has a bit of mess on his hands as it looks like he backed off his prior arrangement with Atty Weinstein so it doesn't appear he/his client were operating in good faith. IMO this is a bad situation to be in as once trust evaporates it usually seems like chaos follows.

I do hope the State and Federal authorities are looking hard at MT and FD as it relates to their activities in particular with FORE. But now we see that MT has a 'rug business' that she is operating online. Did FD via FORE provide the funding for this start up venture? We also see MT purchase an expensive condo in Vail with her baby daddy. Did the MT portion of this condo investment come from FD/FORE funds? Did FD/FORE pay for MT daughter to attend school? Did MT properly represent her salary and benefits including vehicle and housing to the State of CT Dept of Rev and IRS and was her residency properly disclosed as well? IMO MT and her situation is a total legal black hole at this point and is nothing but questions that IMO cannot lead to anyplace but jail/prison. Atty Bowman is trying to protect MT but my guess is that he knows its futile and is most likely just waiting for further charges from the State and Federal authorities and will do his best to keep MT out of Civil Court so as to not make it any easier for these other authorities to prosecute MT. Its all a mess of major proportions IMO and I do wonder why Atty Bowman doesn't just seek to negotiate one settlement deal with the State to cover all the MT crimes? Right now it looks to be the classic "Catch me if you can" game and I'm not sure why MT is willing to roll the dice with spending even more time in prison?

My guess is that Atty Weinstein will keep digging to get all the former FORE employees that might know what was going on to testify and this could include the other party in the $75,000 loan situation who I believe was GV (per the FC documents that are publicly available).

Not sure we will see the 12/3 trial date happen which was sadly what FD wanted to happen.

I really do want to know what Atty Colangelo is doing here and what the State of CT is doing to prosecute MT and FD for other possible crimes beyond the criminal action? Its a mess that IMO won't be solved anytime soon.

MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO
 
  • #844
I've thought a lot about the press issues and I'm not sure there are any clear cut answers other than lack of budgeting for investigative work and insufficient staffing to have a dedicated person stay on a particular case. Even stations and papers in CT that are following the Dulos case don't have consistent reporters and so with a complicated case like this one I would think it would be hard to be off the case for awhile and then be asked to write a piece etc. I would be hard pressed to name 5 reporters who have consistently been on this case day in and day out and that is sad.

There has been some good reporting (new canaannite and Marisa Alter are 2 that come to mind) but most have been IMO spotty and inconsistent. I've tried email editors story ideas of things that are on my list to look at but where I simply don't have time to do it quickly etc. Even papers that have staff are making mistakes as most of this case involves reading legal documents and if you don't have the staff to deal with that situation then its hard IMO and mistakes will be made. Its not just the Dulos case where this is being seen, many missing cases don't even end of getting any coverage at all or you have to fight super hard to get coverage. Its a sad situation IMO.

Truly I cannot blame the gag order for any of the recent reporting issues at all. There is so much investigative work to be done on the Dulos case but I don't think any of the papers in CT really want to take it on as reposting such as we have seen from the HC is simply too lucrative.

I do try to email reporters about errors and some papers have been very responsive, others such as the HC not at all. I think the best we can do is continue to talk about the case here and keep things going.

MOO
I've thought a lot about the press issues and I'm not sure there are any clear cut answers other than lack of budgeting for investigative work and insufficient staffing to have a dedicated person stay on a particular case. Even stations and papers in CT that are following the Dulos case don't have consistent reporters and so with a complicated case like this one I would think it would be hard to be off the case for awhile and then be asked to write a piece etc. I would be hard pressed to name 5 reporters who have consistently been on this case day in and day out and that is sad.

There has been some good reporting (new canaannite and Marisa Alter are 2 that come to mind) but most have been IMO spotty and inconsistent. I've tried email editors story ideas of things that are on my list to look at but where I simply don't have time to do it quickly etc. Even papers that have staff are making mistakes as most of this case involves reading legal documents and if you don't have the staff to deal with that situation then its hard IMO and mistakes will be made. Its not just the Dulos case where this is being seen, many missing cases don't even end of getting any coverage at all or you have to fight super hard to get coverage. Its a sad situation IMO.

Truly I cannot blame the gag order for any of the recent reporting issues at all. There is so much investigative work to be done on the Dulos case but I don't think any of the papers in CT really want to take it on as reposting such as we have seen from the HC is simply too lucrative.

I do try to email reporters about errors and some papers have been very responsive, others such as the HC not at all. I think the best we can do is continue to talk about the case here and keep things going.

MOO
Awhile ago I emailed SA author of a report on this case, asking for a report on NP's referral by judge in Alex Jones case to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, wondering if a consequence could be NP's suspension and how that would affect the Dulos case. No reply. And then no report on his ensuing hearing before the SGC. And SA solicits readers to join their CT Insiders' group--for the really choice bits of news.
 
  • #845
Awhile ago I emailed SA author of a report on this case, asking for a report on NP's referral by judge in Alex Jones case to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, wondering if a consequence could be NP's suspension and how that would affect the Dulos case. No reply. And then no report on his ensuing hearing before the SGC. And SA solicits readers to join their CT Insiders' group--for the really choice bits of news.
Yes, I have been trying to track this issue as well and I wondered also if that is why Atty. P. had brought on another atty to assist as he would not be able to participate if he lost the ability to practice either temporarily or permanently. I think its critical to find out what is going on with this situation. MOO
 
  • #846
Awhile ago I emailed SA author of a report on this case, asking for a report on NP's referral by judge in Alex Jones case to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, wondering if a consequence could be NP's suspension and how that would affect the Dulos case. No reply. And then no report on his ensuing hearing before the SGC. And SA solicits readers to join their CT Insiders' group--for the really choice bits of news.
I don’t think they’ll suspend Pattis and since he also referred himself for disciplinary actions he might just get a warning
 
  • #847
  • #848
Awhile ago I emailed SA author of a report on this case, asking for a report on NP's referral by judge in Alex Jones case to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, wondering if a consequence could be NP's suspension and how that would affect the Dulos case. No reply. And then no report on his ensuing hearing before the SGC. And SA solicits readers to join their CT Insiders' group--for the really choice bits of news.
Yes, I have been trying to track this issue as well and I wondered also if that is why Atty. P. had brought on another atty to assist as he would not be able to participate if he lost the ability to practice either temporarily or permanently. I think its critical to find out what is going on with this situation. MOO
 
  • #849
The SA article made the following statement:
"Bowman is seeking to avoid having his client provide answers during a deposition on her former boyfriend’s finances because he fears it could incriminate her in the criminal proceedings".

Going back to the filings in the Civil Case between Attys Bowman and Weinstein, IMO Atty Bowman had multiple issues about MT deposition. IMO he was concerned about incriminating testimony impacting the criminal proceeding (tampering/hindering) which I had believed was addressed by Atty Weinstein agreeing NOT to incorporate questioning regarding that matter. BUT, Atty Bowman also expressed concern that MT testimony in the Civil Case COULD POSSIBLY RESULT IN OTHER CRIMINAL CHARGES BEING BROUGHT AGAINST MT.

Atty. Bowman previously seemed to have a working arrangement with Atty Weinstein on the MT deposition and then for some reason he totally backed off that agreement and his client invoked her 5th amendment response on all questioning. IMO I don't believe things were supposed to work this way and I very much wonder what might have happened?

My suspicions include the following (as a start....):
  • MT hadn't fully briefed Atty Bowman on the extent of her "activities" at FORE Group so he wasn't aware of the risks of her speaking on any matters relating to FORE/FD.
  • MT role in the $75,000 loan to purchase the smaller house using funds from FD/FORE put her in the cross hairs of 'bank fraud', 'wire fraud' and other assorted crimes possibly associated with assisting FD hide assets in the divorce action. We saw the Bank Officer from Farmington Bank/now Peoples Bank take the 5th when deposed on this transaction in Family Court. My guess is that this entire situation will be resurrected in the form of a possible federal action against MT as she appeared to be the conduit in this matter between FD and the house purchaser and looked to be directly involved with the Bank Officer as well.
  • MT possible role in preparing FD/FORE financial statements either for bank purposes or FC purposes could also put her in the cross hairs of charges related to 'fraud' if she knowingly made false statements. We know from FC documents that there was a sizeable discrepancy between the financial statements presented to the banks for loan purposes and those presented to FC for purposes of assessing FD ability to make support payments for the 5 children. As we know, the FC never made much progress on the assessment of FD finances for purposes of supporting his children.
  • MT most likely was involved with marketing and selling phases of the various FORE properties. We do not know if perhaps there was any misrepresentation that might have happened along the way.
  • MT might also have been involved in making payments to sub contractors using FORE funds and this could be potentially problematic on any number of levels.
  • MT and FD could potentially have used FORE as a shell to conduct other activities not yet publicly known and also potentially used FORE funds to purchase other real estate not in the name of FD or FORE.
This list could IMO go on endlessly and this is why having MT deposed is so important to the Weinstein case. My guess is that MT and FD never believed the situation would come to where it is today which IMO was a gross miscalculation on their parts.

Atty Bowman has a bit of mess on his hands as it looks like he backed off his prior arrangement with Atty Weinstein so it doesn't appear he/his client were operating in good faith. IMO this is a bad situation to be in as once trust evaporates it usually seems like chaos follows.

I do hope the State and Federal authorities are looking hard at MT and FD as it relates to their activities in particular with FORE. But now we see that MT has a 'rug business' that she is operating online. Did FD via FORE provide the funding for this start up venture? We also see MT purchase an expensive condo in Vail with her baby daddy. Did the MT portion of this condo investment come from FD/FORE funds? Did FD/FORE pay for MT daughter to attend school? Did MT properly represent her salary and benefits including vehicle and housing to the State of CT Dept of Rev and IRS and was her residency properly disclosed as well? IMO MT and her situation is a total legal black hole at this point and is nothing but questions that IMO cannot lead to anyplace but jail/prison. Atty Bowman is trying to protect MT but my guess is that he knows its futile and is most likely just waiting for further charges from the State and Federal authorities and will do his best to keep MT out of Civil Court so as to not make it any easier for these other authorities to prosecute MT. Its all a mess of major proportions IMO and I do wonder why Atty Bowman doesn't just seek to negotiate one settlement deal with the State to cover all the MT crimes? Right now it looks to be the classic "Catch me if you can" game and I'm not sure why MT is willing to roll the dice with spending even more time in prison?

My guess is that Atty Weinstein will keep digging to get all the former FORE employees that might know what was going on to testify and this could include the other party in the $75,000 loan situation who I believe was GV (per the FC documents that are publicly available).

Not sure we will see the 12/3 trial date happen which was sadly what FD wanted to happen.

I really do want to know what Atty Colangelo is doing here and what the State of CT is doing to prosecute MT and FD for other possible crimes beyond the criminal action? Its a mess that IMO won't be solved anytime soon.

MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO
VERY WELL SAID! Where is the standing ovation emoji? We need one, stat

Got all of that MT? Bowman? FD? Pattis?

Colangelo, please send a smoke signal that you heard her...

MOO
 
  • #850
Yes, I have been trying to track this issue as well and I wondered also if that is why Atty. P. had brought on another atty to assist as he would not be able to participate if he lost the ability to practice either temporarily or permanently. I think its critical to find out what is going on with this situation. MOO
Maybe it takes another member of Ct. Bar to inquire and get inside info. Is there a site that
the public can see to inquire of such proceedings? I can understand if there's no decision on the hearing yet, but IF he's actually
penalized it should eventually be searchable,
I would think.
 
  • #851
Hard to imagine renting that place. Looks stark and uncomfortable. MOO.
HA...and that's JUST the beginning!

I say we plan an investigative retreat weekend...

We won't need tv's or wifi for that...and I'll supply the shampoo for all.

MOO
 
  • #852
Maybe it takes another member of Ct. Bar to inquire and get inside info. Is there a site that
the public can see to inquire of such proceedings? I can understand if there's no decision on the hearing yet, but IF he's actuallypenalized it should eventually be searchable,
I would think.

The affidavit was signed with Alex Jones authorization due to time constraints in front of another attorney.
The Judge noticed the signatures didn’t match.
It had no disclaimer but the person that signed it had Jones power of attorney and a letter saying everything in the affidavit was true.
It was a procedural issue. The affidavit was re-submitted and signed by Jones.
 
  • #853
HA...and that's JUST the beginning!

I say we plan an investigative retreat weekend...

We won't need tv's or wifi for that...and I'll supply the shampoo for all.

MOO
Thank you Morgan. Some people have now booked it for nov2 to check it out. This is great news. I have located the host as well.
 
  • #854
The other important time was 6:40 A.M. when she awakened and said FD was gone. This was huge as FD claimed he had an early morning appointment with an attorney at his home. (p. 33 on the warrant you linked above)

In going back and reviewing evidence, I watched part of the Dateline Program with the interviews with FD and NP and others. Hearing NP once again state that "they" had been able to account for FD on the morning of the 24th so far. He said FD had been "in and out" of 4JX in the morning and went on to explain that FD couldn't have driven to NC and back and done all the things LE claimed he may have done.

How does a defense attorney deal with a client after something like AW2 reveals that the client has been lying to the him?

Try this on for a fit:
“If it don’t fit, gotta acquit!”
I’ll try to bullet point a few things.
That week, FD and MT were social butterflies. Seems to me, without reviewing a thousand pages of posts,
1. FD tried to meet with soon to be X wife of his Friday morning meeting lawyer alibi. Twice.
2. Wednesday afternoon/evening FD had supervised visitation at JFD rental home. FD played with children, outside, basketball as I recall. Plenty of TIME to check out security. Cameras. Placement.
3. Thursday evening FD and MT hosted a party, cocktails or dinner at their home. Adults only. Children not invited. Any residence children were IMHO either sent to sitter or to a prearranged sleep over. BC:
4. Friday am MT WOKE UP not was awakened by alarm. If you have a real JOB or children that need to be at school in the am, your poor adult body becomes acclimated you waking up at just about the same time every school day. FD was an early bird. 4:00 am by most accounts. So let’s say he leaves the house 5:00 or so. Whatever the routine is for him.
MT woke up at 6:40. That gives her about an hour to get up, take a shower, dress, make breakfast for a child, gather up the child with all school items and leave the house. Now we’re at 7:30-7:40 am. 20-30 minute drive to school. 8:00 ish ETA. Typical day.
5. That Friday, there were no children to help get ready for school. So after spending an hour getting herself ready, she leaves at about 7:40 am. Like clockwork. But instead of driving to school, she takes the half hour or so to drive to job site. Arrives 8:15 or so at job site and now we have two vehicles.
FD had already arrived way earlier in EE truck. Typical am. EE not expected to arrive at job site until about 9:30 that am. EE expects no one at job site.
FD started trampling through poison ivy covered back path to JFD’s rent house. As early as he can bc he probably had a backpack, duffle bag, something to carry his tools. Knife. Plastic trash bags. Some rags. Remember he left his house about 5:00. Maybe a bit later. Got to job site 5:30-5:46-6:00. Depending on traffic. By no later than 7:00, he’s tramping through the woods. To Grandma’s house. Wolf in sheep’s clothing.

With me so far?
Great. Let’s say hour to trample through woods. Gets to Jennifer rent house that he previously checked out for security and cuts whatever lines he needs to cut to dismantle alarms. And lays in wait.

6. MT drive her vehicle straight to job site. Traded her ride for EE pickup. Then drives EE truck to Waverley (?) Park. Kind of off to the side somewhere. And waits for FD. She should have arrived at park about 8:30-8:45 am.

7. In the time MT waiting at park, FD killed JFD. And then realized what a MESS he had made. I’m estimating death at 8:20 or so. Maybe a little sooner. Crap. Look at this. So he stuffs JFD into her suburban wrapped up in the suburban carpet. And starts cleaning up the mess as fast as he can but running out of time. So rinses his messy bloody hands off in kitchen, dumb move, wipes on towels, rags whatever and grabs everything shoved into trash bags destined for Albany Odyssey of Stupidity.

8. Drives JFD Suburban to park. Moves body from Suburban into EE truck in front seat.
Shoves MT on floor in back. Races back over to job site. MT jumps out of back seat of EE truck. Gets into her car and off they go.
Remember, she has a perfect alibi. Some party goer forgot her clutch at party night before. Right. Corroborating alibi for MT for that Friday morning.

9. Now as I remember he drives to NYC and was denied visitation by an armed guard.

10. That’s a 2 hour trek.

11. So who’s left? NP telling us the truth that LE cannot make a case stick. NP effectively roped in MT into the web.

Please correct who went where at what time. My thoughts are based on my recollections.

FD alibi lawyer meeting is now not confirmed. His Greek phone calls witness that was scheduled to arrive in the USA to corroborate telephone call to Greece never materialized. Oh, yes, the clutch dinner party bag? Who did it belong to, MT? I don’t know too many ladies that lose their purses at parties.

I CANNOT GET THESE TWO REPLIES SEPARATED.

New from SA...

Attorney for Jennifer Dulos’ mother: Troconis making a ‘mockery’ of deposition

An attorney representing Jennifer Dulos’ mother said Michelle Troconis is making “a mockery” of her court-ordered deposition by invoking her Fifth Amendment rights on a “wholesale basis” during questioning.

In the latest of a series of legal filings by each of the attorneys involved, Richard Weinstein, who represents Gloria Farber, urged the court to “compel” Troconis to answer questions in the civil lawsuits against her former boyfriend, Fotis Dulos.

Weinstein contends Troconis could have valuable information pertaining to the business dealings of Fotis Dulos’ real estate development company, Fore Group.

Bowman is seeking to avoid having his client provide answers during a deposition on her former boyfriend’s finances because he fears it could incriminate her in the criminal proceedings.

“The sole purpose in pursuing the same (the other returns) was and is an attempt to ascertain the net worth of the Farbers and efforts to otherwise utilize said information in regard to the then pending divorce,” Weinstein said.

Attorney for Jennifer Dulos’ mother: Troconis making a ‘mockery’ of deposition

Can the questions/paperwork be reviewed “in camera?” By judge only to determine what can be released and what shouldn’t be released per 5th Amendment?

The frustration with all of this wrangling will lead to a Connecticut Challenge: voluntarily revamp your old, archaic system. Or involuntarily you’ll be up for a blood letting.
My head pounds when I try to get a grip on what it would take to make a CHANGE. Worse, how the rest of the USA can make a change happen from outside of CT. Bc I believe we’d have to be on the streets of CT to demand and win change. We are beating ourselves up trying to secure justice by enforcing laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS with out being right there, front and center, and marching with the obnoxious hand lettered signs, blaring megaphones and supporting, screaming crowds.
I don’t think diplomacy is going to make it happen. Unfortunately.
I don’t want Jennifer’s legacy to have to be a fight in the trenches. I would prefer an image that reflects Jennifer Farber herself. Gracious. Intelligent. Hard working. Dedicated. Courteous. Loved and respected by all who knew her.
I’ll keep thinking. But soon, I’ll have to act. I’ll have to “just get it done.”
 
Last edited:
  • #855
Hard to imagine renting that place. Looks stark and uncomfortable. MOO.
Yes, nothing like paying $1,400 or so a night and having to bring sleeping bags and air mattresses!
MOO
 
  • #856
Yes, nothing like paying $1,400 or so a night and having to bring sleeping bags and air mattresses!
MOO
I just find the whole thing really creepy. Will he be lurking in the dark somewhere making sure no one has shoes on?
MOO.
 
  • #857
I just find the whole thing really creepy. Will he be lurking in the dark somewhere making sure no one has shoes on?
MOO.
Actually I would be concerned about webcams and listening devices! My guess is that there is security in the house. Gutsy folks to take on the rental IMO. MOO
 
  • #858
The SA article made the following statement:
"Bowman is seeking to avoid having his client provide answers during a deposition on her former boyfriend’s finances because he fears it could incriminate her in the criminal proceedings".

Going back to the filings in the Civil Case between Attys Bowman and Weinstein, IMO Atty Bowman had multiple issues about MT deposition. IMO he was concerned about incriminating testimony impacting the criminal proceeding (tampering/hindering) which I had believed was addressed by Atty Weinstein agreeing NOT to incorporate questioning regarding that matter. BUT, Atty Bowman also expressed concern that MT testimony in the Civil Case COULD POSSIBLY RESULT IN OTHER CRIMINAL CHARGES BEING BROUGHT AGAINST MT.

Atty. Bowman previously seemed to have a working arrangement with Atty Weinstein on the MT deposition and then for some reason he totally backed off that agreement and his client invoked her 5th amendment response on all questioning. IMO I don't believe things were supposed to work this way and I very much wonder what might have happened?

My suspicions include the following (as a start....):
  • MT hadn't fully briefed Atty Bowman on the extent of her "activities" at FORE Group so he wasn't aware of the risks of her speaking on any matters relating to FORE/FD.
  • MT role in the $75,000 loan to purchase the smaller house using funds from FD/FORE put her in the cross hairs of 'bank fraud', 'wire fraud' and other assorted crimes possibly associated with assisting FD hide assets in the divorce action. We saw the Bank Officer from Farmington Bank/now Peoples Bank take the 5th when deposed on this transaction in Family Court. My guess is that this entire situation will be resurrected in the form of a possible federal action against MT as she appeared to be the conduit in this matter between FD and the house purchaser and looked to be directly involved with the Bank Officer as well.
  • MT possible role in preparing FD/FORE financial statements either for bank purposes or FC purposes could also put her in the cross hairs of charges related to 'fraud' if she knowingly made false statements. We know from FC documents that there was a sizeable discrepancy between the financial statements presented to the banks for loan purposes and those presented to FC for purposes of assessing FD ability to make support payments for the 5 children. As we know, the FC never made much progress on the assessment of FD finances for purposes of supporting his children.
  • MT most likely was involved with marketing and selling phases of the various FORE properties. We do not know if perhaps there was any misrepresentation that might have happened along the way.
  • MT might also have been involved in making payments to sub contractors using FORE funds and this could be potentially problematic on any number of levels.
  • MT and FD could potentially have used FORE as a shell to conduct other activities not yet publicly known and also potentially used FORE funds to purchase other real estate not in the name of FD or FORE.
This list could IMO go on endlessly and this is why having MT deposed is so important to the Weinstein case. My guess is that MT and FD never believed the situation would come to where it is today which IMO was a gross miscalculation on their parts.

Atty Bowman has a bit of mess on his hands as it looks like he backed off his prior arrangement with Atty Weinstein so it doesn't appear he/his client were operating in good faith. IMO this is a bad situation to be in as once trust evaporates it usually seems like chaos follows.

I do hope the State and Federal authorities are looking hard at MT and FD as it relates to their activities in particular with FORE. But now we see that MT has a 'rug business' that she is operating online. Did FD via FORE provide the funding for this start up venture? We also see MT purchase an expensive condo in Vail with her baby daddy. Did the MT portion of this condo investment come from FD/FORE funds? Did FD/FORE pay for MT daughter to attend school? Did MT properly represent her salary and benefits including vehicle and housing to the State of CT Dept of Rev and IRS and was her residency properly disclosed as well? IMO MT and her situation is a total legal black hole at this point and is nothing but questions that IMO cannot lead to anyplace but jail/prison. Atty Bowman is trying to protect MT but my guess is that he knows its futile and is most likely just waiting for further charges from the State and Federal authorities and will do his best to keep MT out of Civil Court so as to not make it any easier for these other authorities to prosecute MT. Its all a mess of major proportions IMO and I do wonder why Atty Bowman doesn't just seek to negotiate one settlement deal with the State to cover all the MT crimes? Right now it looks to be the classic "Catch me if you can" game and I'm not sure why MT is willing to roll the dice with spending even more time in prison?

My guess is that Atty Weinstein will keep digging to get all the former FORE employees that might know what was going on to testify and this could include the other party in the $75,000 loan situation who I believe was GV (per the FC documents that are publicly available).

Not sure we will see the 12/3 trial date happen which was sadly what FD wanted to happen.

I really do want to know what Atty Colangelo is doing here and what the State of CT is doing to prosecute MT and FD for other possible crimes beyond the criminal action? Its a mess that IMO won't be solved anytime soon.

MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO

Ever play poker?
Dealer shuffles a couple decks then deals out cards to all sitting at the table WHO HAVE CHIPS TO PLAY.
There are plenty of chips and plenty of cards left. Move your chips. Drop cards. Get new cards. Rearrange your hand. Re-stack your chips. A few players will drop out along the way. Alibi lawyer already folded his cards and left the table.
There’s a time to hold ‘em. This isn’t the time to fold ‘em for the strongest players. There are aces up some sleeves. Weapons under the table pointed at opponents. If you cheat, you’ll get hurt.
The Sheriff’s upstairs. He’ll come down in a bit.
 
  • #859
Try this on for a fit:
“If it don’t fit, gotta acquit!”
I’ll try to bullet point a few things.
That week, FD and MT were social butterflies. Seems to me, without reviewing a thousand pages of posts,
1. FD tried to meet with soon to be X wife of his Friday morning meeting lawyer alibi. Twice.
2. Wednesday afternoon/evening FD had supervised visitation at JFD rental home. FD played with children, outside, basketball as I recall. Plenty of TIME to check out security. Cameras. Placement.
3. Thursday evening FD and MT hosted a party, cocktails or dinner at their home. Adults only. Children not invited. Any residence children were IMHO either sent to sitter or to a prearranged sleep over. BC:
4. Friday am MT WOKE UP not was awakened by alarm. If you have a real JOB or children that need to be at school in the am, your poor adult body becomes acclimated you waking up at just about the same time every school day. FD was an early bird. 4:00 am by most accounts. So let’s say he leaves the house 5:00 or so. Whatever the routine is for him.
MT woke up at 6:40. That gives her about an hour to get up, take a shower, dress, make breakfast for a child, gather up the child with all school items and leave the house. Now we’re at 7:30-7:40 am. 20-30 minute drive to school. 8:00 ish ETA. Typical day.
5. That Friday, there were no children to help get ready for school. So after spending an hour getting herself ready, she leaves at about 7:40 am. Like clockwork. But instead of driving to school, she takes the half hour or so to drive to job site. Arrives 8:15 or so at job site and now we have two vehicles.
FD had already arrived way earlier in EE truck. Typical am. EE not expected to arrive at job site until about 9:30 that am. EE expects no one at job site.
FD started trampling through poison ivy covered back path to JFD’s rent house. As early as he can bc he probably had a backpack, duffle bag, something to carry his tools. Knife. Plastic trash bags. Some rags. Remember he left his house about 5:00. Maybe a bit later. Got to job site 5:30-5:46-6:00. Depending on traffic. By no later than 7:00, he’s tramping through the woods. To Grandma’s house. Wolf in sheep’s clothing.

With me so far?
Great. Let’s say hour to trample through woods. Gets to Jennifer rent house that he previously checked out for security and cuts whatever lines he needs to cut to dismantle alarms. And lays in wait.

6. MT drive her vehicle straight to job site. Traded her ride for EE pickup. Then drives EE truck to Waverley (?) Park. Kind of off to the side somewhere. And waits for FD. She should have arrived at park about 8:30-8:45 am.

7. In the time MT waiting at park, FD killed JFD. And then realized what a MESS he had made. I’m estimating death at 8:20 or so. Maybe a little sooner. Crap. Look at this. So he stuffs JFD into her suburban wrapped up in the suburban carpet. And starts cleaning up the mess as fast as he can but running out of time. So rinses his messy bloody hands off in kitchen, dumb move, wipes on towels, rags whatever and grabs everything shoved into trash bags destined for Albany Odyssey of Stupidity.

8. Drives JFD Suburban to park. Moves body from Suburban into EE truck in front seat.
Shoves MT on floor in back. Races back over to job site. MT jumps out of back seat of EE truck. Gets into her car and off they go.
Remember, she has a perfect alibi. Some party goer forgot her clutch at party night before. Right. Corroborating alibi for MT for that Friday morning.

9. Now as I remember he drives to NYC and was denied visitation by an armed guard.

10. That’s a 2 hour trek.

11. So who’s left? NP telling us the truth that LE cannot make a case stick. NP effectively roped in MT into the web.

Please correct who went where at what time. My thoughts are based on my recollections.

FD alibi lawyer meeting is now not confirmed. His Greek phone calls witness that was scheduled to arrive in the USA to corroborate telephone call to Greece never materialized. Oh, yes, the clutch dinner party bag? Who did it belong to, MT? I don’t know too many ladies that lose their purses at parties.

I CANNOT GET THESE TWO SEPARATED.

Can the questions/paperwork be reviewed “in camera?” By judge only to determine what can be released and what shouldn’t be released per 5th Amendment?

The frustration with all of this wrangling will lead to a Connecticut Challenge: voluntarily revamp your old, archaic system. Or involuntarily you’ll be up for a blood letting.
My head pounds when I try to get a grip on what it would take to make a CHANGE. Worse, how the rest of the USA can make a change happen from outside of CT. Bc I believe we’d have to be on the streets of CT to demand and win change. We are beating ourselves up trying to secure justice by enforcing laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS with out being right there, front and center, and marching with the obnoxious hand lettered signs, blaring megaphones and supporting, screaming crowds.
I don’t think diplomacy is going to make it happen. Unfortunately.
I don’t want Jennifer’s legacy to have to be a fight in the trenches. I would prefer an image that reflects Jennifer Farber herself. Gracious. Intelligent. Hard working. Dedicated. Courteous. Loved and respected by all who knew her.
I’ll keep thinking. But soon, I’ll have to act. I’ll have to “just get it done.”

WS site acting up. Cannot separate these two replies or edit even though edit button still active.
I give up.
Sorry.
But basically, NP was telling us the truth when he said LE accusations cannot be accomplished by FD in time LE states. Haha. NP handed us accomplice: MT.
I’ve tried to pull the time available and accomplices’ actions together into one timeline.
Wednesday security camera check by FD.
Thursday adult only party.
Friday am time routine the same except agendas different.
FD heads to job site in EE truck. Put his tool kit together and walks back way to ambush JFD. Starts walking 6:30-7:00. MT drives to job site straight from house. Arrives 8:15-8:30. Switches vehicles. Takes EE truck to Wav Park.
FD takes JFD body and bloody mess in her Suburban to Wav Park where MT helps shift body and bloody mess to EE truck. Suburban stays at Wav Park.
All 3 go back to job site in EE truck before 9:30 EE arrival from Hartford. MT picks up her vehicle. FD keeps driving EE truck with JFD body wherever he’s taking her.
Chapter 1.
I’d have to get rest of info together to explain from 9:30 and no time for it now.
But, I guess my point is
Security check: cameras disabled
Adult party: no kids. Alibi for MT. Purse.
Friday timeline until 9:30.
Feel free to add from that time. MT states she saw FD at noon? So they had 2.5 hours to dispose of body.

This early am timeline was the part I couldn’t wrap my head around.

Premeditation:
Wednesday cameras
Thursday party purse alibi
Friday no kid no school run. If dropped off kid, left school 8:15, drives to work swaps vehicle still time to get to Wav Park, move body, back to work site before 9:30 arrival. Coast was clear.
 
Last edited:
  • #860
bbm
Cheshire man accused of killing his wife wants to see his child
Hoping for favorable rulings from Judge Noble on plaintiffs’ outstanding motions, including motion for reconsideration on his ruling on NP’s motion to quash. See above NH Register article on NP new client, Cheshire def accused of wife’s murder. Notice the way this is worded: “The attorney, Norman Pattis, who has been hired in place of the public defender who initially represented the defendant…” So defendant qualified for a public defender (presumably on his financial filings) and presumably a salaried public defender represented him at first. Then “Norman Pattis, who has been hired” in place of that public defender…” Author Randall Beach doesn’t say the def hired NP, that the def retained NP, suddenly having found the funds to do so. So who hired NP—the State of CT, as an “off-contract” special public defender with public funds? NP is a really special spd—no contract to bid for, no annual questionnaire to fill out re whether an ethics committee ever found probable cause of misconduct against him. Particularly disturbing in light of NP’s recent appearance at the Statewide Grievance Committee hearing to face serious probable cause charges (not reported anywhere in the press that I could find). Oh, NP also used to write for the NHR. Pals with RB?
Good point, and it's entirely possible the same is happening with FD - that he too is being paid by the State of CT! Disgusting, no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
2,384
Total visitors
2,443

Forum statistics

Threads
632,756
Messages
18,631,233
Members
243,279
Latest member
Tweety1807
Back
Top