Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #31

[Nanobody]

Could the extra pages have been a stalling technique?

Speculation/MOO

 

[sleuth66]

You're the best @afitzy!

Any speculation as to who was on the guest list for the dinner party? KM?, SM? Do they collectively have enough credible friends to show up on a Thursday night for a "dinner party"? The neighbor's camera would likely be able to prove/disprove their attendance. A dinner party of 4 perhaps? FD, MT, Mama A and child? Maybe it was Mama A who left without her purse?

MOO, MOO, MOO

The only place we heard about a “dinner party” was from NP very early on. Related to MT purse return. With the phone call from Greece flying in and early morning lawyer meeting. Before the polygraph. Probably another check-off on the alibi list. In sum, no evidence there ever was a “dinner party” let alone a guest list.

 

[Tink56]

The only place we heard about a “dinner party” was from NP very early on. Related to MT purse return. With the phone call from Greece flying in and early morning lawyer meeting. Before the polygraph. Probably another check-off on the alibi list. In sum, no evidence there ever was a “dinner party” let alone a guest list.

That may have been the party that FD was forcefully trying to organize. Perhaps he rounded up a couple of people who owed him a favor....rather like NP and his news contacts that owe him a favor.

That's the thing that REALLY bothers me about NP's style and interpretation of the "freedom of speech." LE has based it's warrants on evidence. NP makes up stories to create an alternate universe with no basis in fact. That may be freedom of speech, but it defies ethical judgment and any truth based in evidence.

I certainly wouldn't make a very good judge, because I would throw that stuff out or tell NP to "show me your evidence" before he could spout all this nonsense.

 

[HopeForTheBest]

Here is document for those that are brave enough to dive in, feel free:

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=lqAhny/4Z2wbayRpdbojjg==

Originally my plan to was read the above document and ask questions. I have any number of questions about the document but really my basic question is why do we see Atty. P. yet again (yawn) beating the drum about the 1st Amendment and the right to free speech in a motion to appeal a gag order imposed by Judge Blawie when I believe the real and fundamental issue at hand is the seeming inability or unwillingness of Atty. P. to comply with Rules 3.6(a) and 3.6(b) of Professional Conduct and the inability or unwillingness of the State to 'call out' such non compliance except in a response to the Atty. P. motion to dismiss the 'gag order'?

We also have the issue in 3.6(b) where the behaviour standard refers to a 'reasonable attorney' and it does seem like perhaps a clarification of this standard for Atty. P. might just be necessary and I do wonder if this might have been done earlier in Chambers outside of the Press view and warnings given that non compliance won't be tolerated? Perhaps this was done and Atty. P. simply didn't listen to the warnings of Judge Blawie. Sadly we don't know. But the case ended up with a 'gag order' IMO as the result of insufficient policing of basic standards for whatever reason.

I do think we all know that the 'gag order' was imposed for a reason. But I do wonder if Atty. P. had been following the rules whether it could have been avoided in its entirety? IDK. I support the 'gag order' as drafted as it seems to be the only way given the players involved with the case to make sure a jury can be found and a fair trial delivered IMO. Its sad that Court can't or won't impose discipline on attorneys that don't follow rules and it took the 'gag order' discussion/debate to see the State call out Atty. P. for his non compliance with basic Court procedures.

Its all a bit convoluted but I believe the 1st Amendment issues, the FD right to speak and Atty. P. right to defend his client are simply 'smokescreen' issues to hide behind and deflect (yet again) responsibility for following the rules of the court and to go back to a toddler reference to make this point clear, "colouring inside the lines". I think the bottom line was that Atty. P. wants to say whatever he wants to say at any time and to anyone with no questioning from anyone and then IMO conveniently hides behind the existence of 3.6(a) and 3.6(b) when convenient to do so. Why did neither Judge Blawie or State Atty Colangelo call BS on this when the first "Gone Girl" and "Revenge Suicide" statements started? I would love to see 20 atty's shown the facts of the case relating to statements made by Atty. P. and see how many would agree with the statement that he was in compliance with Professional Guidelines based on the 'reasonable attorney' standard? My guess is that any CT atty following this case will now simply thumb their nose at 3.6(a) and (b) because they have seen it totally mocked in the Dulos case!

The Judge Blawie 'gag order' was necessitated almost completely IMO by the inability of Atty. P. to follow along with the Professional Rules of Conduct. Sure there were LE leaks along the way too and these leaks no doubt wound up Atty. P. into a frenzy but for each leak and comment Atty. P. had the choice of whether to behave in a manner that was consistent with the rules of the court. State Atty Colangelo doesn't talk about the Atty. P. leaking of the draft psych report in Family Court but in that case we saw a confidential document leaked to the press with no consequences for Atty. P either from the Court or the State Bar other than him being 'excused' from being the court via what we guess to be a behind closed door meeting with Judge Heller. Good to see how State of CT Judges are protecting confidential information of participants in litigation as that was one of the worst violations of sensitive information I've seen in a long time with zero consequences.

But I do wonder why we didn't see either Judge Blawie or Atty Colangelo calling out the violations to the Professional Rules of Conduct in advance of calling for a 'gag order' in Criminal Court? I don't think that its any mystery or 'secret' that Atty. P. has issues being told what he can and cannot do. Atty. P. IMO just keep pushing the boundaries further and further until the public saw what was happening and was appalled at what was being allowed to be said about someone not here to defend herself.

So, when the statement was made about the MT polygraph test which was known to be false according to State Atty Colangelo why not simply call out the falsehood? This same question exists for the many horrible statements made by Atty. P. about the missing victim JF which so far as I can tell when unchallenged by the State and were never questioned by Judge Blawie until the light bulb went off that things had been going on for months and there was a major issue with the potential jury pool and possible fair trial for FD and MT. Why did it take so long for something to be done? Presumably the Judge and States atty are keeping up with the external news on the case and so to see the victim being labeled as a heroin addict and girlfriend to a drug dealer and having staged her own disappearance simply to spite her husband, perhaps it was a clear signal that things had simply gone off the rails? I don't get the ongoing pussyfooting around the rules? But we see it time and time again both in Civil Court, Family Court and now sadly Criminal Court. What is the purpose of the rules unless the people charged with maintaining them actually do something to make sure they are followed?

Atty Colangelo says (about Atty. P.), "Some of his statements do not run afoul of Rule 3.6(a), but many of them plain do". GREAT, but why not do something about it? Atty Colangelo goes on and on talking about the issues of Atty. P. many statements prior to the 'gag order' and then finishes on Page A121 by saying, "The Court should not let them go unadmonished". Atty Colangelo on Page A122 goes on to say that "Rule 3.6(B) is not a license to say anything counsel thinks will help his client in response to potentially negative publicity. Rather, statements just be "required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of the recent publicity."

REALLY. GOOD TO KNOW. BUT WHY NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

So, we seem to have a difference of opinion as to Professional Standards between the parties and the Judge that rather than dealing with the issues directly IMO skirts the discussion by imposing a 'gag order' perhaps to avoid later appeal IDK? But, the net effect IMO of not addressing the conduct issues is that Atty. P. gets to wave the 1st Amendment flag and talk word salad and simply IMO waste time on issues that 'at best' are peripheral to the case of the State against FD and uses the State Supreme Court as a launching pad for future Atty. P. appeals.

So, my big question was why did Judge Blawie and State Atty Colangelo let the situation of Atty. P. statements to the Press escalate into a place where the court finds itself today and now we have State Supreme Court Justices spending their time on 1st Amendment issues not really directly tied to the original issues at hand IMO? IMO it would have been more productive for Atty. P. to have been sanctioned at the lower court level for non compliance with 3.6(a) and/or (b) and let him take the sanctions up on appeal to the State Supreme Court and not have the State Supreme Court engaged in a review of Atty. P. 1st Amendment Word Salad that has little to do with the real issues at hand.

The other question I have is also directed to Judge Blawie and States Atty Colangelo and it relates to what are the rights of a missing victim who is not here to defend herself against the horrific comments directed in her direction by Atty. P. The State of CT doesn't have a missing persons advocate process that I'm aware of but it seems that on some basic level that the comments of Atty. P. and his team of PR people should have been stopped based simply on imposing compliance with the rules of Professional Conduct many many months ago. Why was nobody in the judiciary looking at this issue or caring that the reputation and character of a person not present was being for lack of a better word, "SLAMMED" in the press by supposed Officers of the Court? Why was this allowed to happen? The damage to JD has been done and no gag order is going to fix that damage IMO. Does the Court simply not care about the damage inflicted to date by Atty. P. statements?

Many things about this case have been disappointing from the State Police who don't believe they have an obligation to update the public on their case in a professional manner as is seen in similar cases every day across the county (even if just to say we continue to work hard!) and instead choose to selectively leak information to the press which served to inflame a situation where defense counsel felt compelled to respond by victim shaming and blaming. But the most disappointing thing IMO has been the State not protecting JD as a missing person as it almost seemed that JD didn't matter as a human being to the State at all and so her being thrashed in the Press via daily ongoing comments from the defense weren't important.

IMO JD as a human being and mother of 5 small children, who at some point in the future will read about this case and their mother someday, is important and IMO she and her reputation should be closely guarded by the State and I feel like the State let JD down in a very big way in not protecting her through this process. Not sure what her 5 children will think reading back on what was allowed to be said about their mother many years from now and where nobody did anything in the early months of the case to protect their mother from false statements being made about her.

MOO

You are incredible. It’s an especially busy time for me at work and I find myself trying to catch up here at odd, too-limited hours—and I am always amazed by the detail, thought, research, and passion you and so many others here put into the goal of Justice for Jennifer. Thank you, afitzy, and thank you, all. MOO.

 

[Niner]

I think the state has 2 weeks to file a response. Whoops....here's what I found from the Stamford Advocate, October 3, 2019:

Defense attorney Norm Pattis, who requested the hearing, will need to file a legal brief by Oct. 9 and the state has until Oct. 28 to respond. A hearing will be scheduled after Dec. 5.

“We are delighted. I am looking forward to the argument,” Pattis said. “Gag orders are a form of prior restraint on speech and are particularly odious.”

The state’s highest court, however, denied the Hartford Courant’s request to file an amicus brief in support of revoking the gag order.

Looks like the deadlines have been moved back already or the press is late...hmmmm….

but.... I have this in my notes:

10/28/19 Update: Defense Attorney Pattis will file his arguments Monday (10/28/19) in favor of the state Supreme Court overturning a gag order imposed by a lower court judge in the criminal case against his client, Dulos. Attorneys for the Chief State's Attorney's Office will have until Nov. 22 to file their brief opposing Pattis’ appeal. Pattis will then have until Dec. 5 to file a rebuttal before the Supreme Court hears the case on Dec. 9.

Nothing about a hearing on 12/5 - ??

 

[afitzy]

The only place we heard about a “dinner party” was from NP very early on. Related to MT purse return. With the phone call from Greece flying in and early morning lawyer meeting. Before the polygraph. Probably another check-off on the alibi list. In sum, no evidence there ever was a “dinner party” let alone a guest list.

Yes, the 'dinner party' is on my 'alibi scripts' list to double check once the actual 'alibi scripts' list is made public eventually.

I am quite curious when Mama A arrived in Farmington and did she stay for the entire period up until the arrest and afterwards to take care of MT daughter? We know MT was meeting with Atty Bowman in advance of her arrest in June, but I wonder if Mama A participated in this process with Bowman at all as my guess is that she was paying for it all?!?! Others have said that MT had a nanny but we have no pictures of a nanny, which isn't to say they didn't exist but my guess is that Mama A was brought in to take care of MT daughter early on. Just wonder how early? MOO

 

[afitzy]

but.... I have this in my notes:

10/28/19 Update: Defense Attorney Pattis will file his arguments Monday (10/28/19) in favor of the state Supreme Court overturning a gag order imposed by a lower court judge in the criminal case against his client, Dulos. Attorneys for the Chief State's Attorney's Office will have until Nov. 22 to file their brief opposing Pattis’ appeal. Pattis will then have until Dec. 5 to file a rebuttal before the Supreme Court hears the case on Dec. 9.

Nothing about a hearing on 12/5 - ??

Here is how its described in the HC:

"Chief Justice Richard Robinson granted attorney Norm Pattis’ application to have the state’s highest court review the gag order put in place on Sept. 12 by Judge John Blawie. Pattis must now file a legal brief by Oct. 9. The state will have until Oct. 28 to respond and the hearing will be scheduled for sometime after Dec. 5".[BBM]

 

[afitzy]

Still laughing about the HC General Counsel Statement as reposted by DA:

The Courant plans to file an amicus brief with the state Supreme Court opposing the gag order.

“Without question, the gag order impinges on the media’s, including the Courant’s, critical rights [BBM] to gather information from the sources closest to the proceedings,” wrote the Courant’s attorney William S. Fish Jr.

For those so inclined to read DA here is the reposting:
Connecticut Supreme Court grants emergency appeal on gag order in Fotis Dulos case

I am laughing because the HC atty. talks nothing about HC reporters actually doing any REPORTING or INVESTIGATIVE WORK. Nope. HC is talking about protecting the ongoing ability of their Reporters to REPOST comments from sources 'closest to the proceedings' and makes the argument that Reporters are somehow entitled to speak with, "...sources closest to the proceedings'. REALLY, Reporters have an entitlement to speak to sources closest to the proceedings? Where is this right embedded?

My guess is this is all about $$$$$$ and only vaguely connected to Freedom of Speech. Reposting as practiced by the HC is a highly lucrative game and so to the extent that its not possible then the business model changes and reporters have to spend time actually working outside the office which costs $$$$ and time. OH NO.....

IMO this 'amicus brief' is just a cynical legal ploy (no doubt encouraged by Atty. P. ) to preserve their revenue stream to maintain "Investigative Journalists" who rarely leave their offices. Good work if you can get it and so it makes sense to legally fight to maintain this 'entitlement'.

IMO its a total FARCE.

MOO

 

[Niner]

Here is how its described in the HC:

"Chief Justice Richard Robinson granted attorney Norm Pattis’ application to have the state’s highest court review the gag order put in place on Sept. 12 by Judge John Blawie. Pattis must now file a legal brief by Oct. 9. The state will have until Oct. 28 to respond and the hearing will be scheduled for sometime after Dec. 5".[BBM]

Thanks for the clarification afitzy!

 

[Hair of the Dog]

Yes, the 'dinner party' is on my 'alibi scripts' list to double check once the actual 'alibi scripts' list is made public eventually.

I am quite curious when Mama A arrived in Farmington and did she stay for the entire period up until the arrest and afterwards to take care of MT daughter? We know MT was meeting with Atty Bowman in advance of her arrest in June, but I wonder if Mama A participated in this process with Bowman at all as my guess is that she was paying for it all?!?! Others have said that MT had a nanny but we have no pictures of a nanny, which isn't to say they didn't exist but my guess is that Mama A was brought in to take care of MT daughter early on. Just wonder how early? MOO

IMO "Mama" certainly seems to have a lot of spare time and $ on her hands.....

 

[Hair of the Dog]

IMO, when I read the almost nonsensical briefs submitted to the court by NP, I envision an office that is disorganized, understaffed and out of control. Some poor admin person putting the briefs together pulling from a document here and a document there that may or may not be germane, filings being half ***sed, getting done "just in time". MOO, MOO, MOO

 

[Hair of the Dog]

The only place we heard about a “dinner party” was from NP very early on. Related to MT purse return. With the phone call from Greece flying in and early morning lawyer meeting. Before the polygraph. Probably another check-off on the alibi list. In sum, no evidence there ever was a “dinner party” let alone a guest list.

Truly boggles my mind that anyone contemplating such a horrendous crime could be so stupid. I think:

FD and MT are both suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect in spades and

FD felt so validated by what he had been able to get away with thus far within the CT judicial system, he thought he was invincible and assumed that LE would just take him at his word without verification. After all, look how nice and understanding they were to his friend KM after that unfortunate gas can/crowbar incident.

Got my MOO, MOO on this morning, wishing everyone a glorious day!

 

[Jmoose]

IMO, when I read the almost nonsensical briefs submitted to the court by NP, I envision an office that is disorganized, understaffed and out of control. Some poor admin person putting the briefs together pulling from a document here and a document there that may or may not be germane, filings being half ***sed, getting done "just in time". MOO, MOO, MOO

I have that same picture in my head, too. It must be a terrible office to work in. And if I was an admin in that office, I would cringe at the way these briefs were written, to the point where I would ask if it was ok to fix the spelling, grammar and sentence structure-and could I please remove the Shakespeare references, and other arcane word choices. Those things don’t improve the brief-everyone knows that it merely serves to cover the deficiencies.

 

[sds71]

NP had to amend his brief because the Statement of Issues page was missing.
SC 20363 STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. FOTIS DULOS

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=+smF3vFzx5LTglXURO27XQ==

 

[Chicago54]

NP had to amend his brief because the Statement of Issues page was missing.
SC 20363 STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. FOTIS DULOS

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=+smF3vFzx5LTglXURO27XQ==

That. Is. Hysterical.
In my opinion, the most severe Dunning- Kruger symptoms are seen here. MOO

 

[Southernsnooper]

That. Is. Hysterical.
I my opinion, the most severe Dunning- Kruger symptoms are seen here. MOO

NP’s brief isn’t brief! Wastes so much time, energy and tax payers’ money.

Perhaps he should invest more time in his client’s defense theories. Moo

 

[afitzy]

NP had to amend his brief because the Statement of Issues page was missing.
SC 20363 STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. FOTIS DULOS

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=+smF3vFzx5LTglXURO27XQ==

Thanks for this!

A good laugh to begin the week! Oops! Kudos to all those that identified that there might be 'administrative issues' in Pattisville offices!

I hope this week brings us some news and that we see some progress in the Civil Case so it can get wrapped up this year!

MOO

 

[afitzy]

NP’s brief isn’t brief! Wastes so much time, energy and tax payers’ money.

Perhaps he should invest more time in his client’s defense theories. Moo

Sadly, IMO the principal defense strategies seem to be DELAY DELAY DELAY followed by APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL and then you do a RINSE, WASH, SPIN on REPEAT and then CYCLE REPEAT over and over and over again!

The decision of Atty. P. to repeat the FD/MT 'alibi scripts' so extensively in the public domain has forever imprinted this narrative on to the case and branded both of the co-defendants IMO individuals incapable of telling the truth. Clients with zero credibility are a challenge by most accounts to defend so it will be curious to see what rabbits Atty. P. pulls out of his ponytail here!

MOO

 

[SkylarSid]

NP had to amend his brief because the Statement of Issues page was missing.
SC 20363 STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. FOTIS DULOS

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=+smF3vFzx5LTglXURO27XQ==

That is, in my opinion, pathetic. In addition to torturing those who had to read the original doc,, he goes and add something he somehow forgot.... Laughable. JMO

 

[Midwestmom2019]

REALLY. GOOD TO KNOW. BUT WHY NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

MOO

Respectfully snipped for focus.

Either no one is running CT, lawless Wild Wild West or the New World Order is in charge. It’s all behind a veil of secrecy.