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

[SkylarSid]

So glad you brought this particular statement up for discussion!

I'm not sure what defense atty EVER would make such a statement as it simply seems improbable on the surface.

The Atty [REDACTED] statement also flies in the face of the many whining Atty. P. statements about having insufficient discovery about Welles, poor quality CDs from Albany (my personal opinion is Atty. P. needs a stronger pair of reading glasses!), electronic items discovery and the list goes on and on.

What also seems interesting to me about the Atty [REDACTED] statement was I'm not sure he got his information from MT either.

So, where did Atty Bowman get his information in order to say that he knows EVERYTHING the STATE has?

- Did States Atty Colangelo perhaps share information with Atty. B in hopes of facilitating a deal?
- Does Atty. B have contacts in State Police or LE with 'loose lips'? Perhaps the same 'loose lipped LE' that so angered Judge Blawie? But why would LE risk an investigation to assist Atty. B?
- The old standby whipping boy DA crew at the HC who maintain contact with the local defense atty's in order to facilitate their 'reposting' racket?
-Did Atty. B. former Federal Prosecutor colleagues or FBI contact perhaps 'spill the beans'
- Is there a 'leak' inside Atty Colangelo's team that is leaking to Atty. B and/or Atty P?

Perhaps this was simply an ill advised statement made towards the end of a possibly stressful deposition?

Perhaps Atty B is either more arrogant or more stupid that any of us know?

Or, maybe Atty B was telling the truth and he does know all which then leads to the question of WHY?

From reading that deposition and then the followup motions by Atty Bowman and how hard he is now seeming to fight to protect MT and keep her from speaking anywhere, I have to seriously wonder if he has to go into overkill mode on the deposition because she simply hasn't yet shared all with him and so he simply doesn't know what all he has to protect her from?

IMO the Atty Weinstein deposition was tough but also something of a long series of 'softball' questions. We didn't see some characters known to be part of the case that MT would clearly have known named in the deposition. Atty Weinstein also stayed true to his word about not crossing the bridge into questions regarding the criminal case. I do still believe that Atty B retraded his original deal with Atty Weinstein for whatever reason and looks to be IMO someone with questionable integrity as it relates to his dealings in this case on behalf of MT OR something major happened between when he first cracked a deal on the deposition with Atty Weinstein and so Atty Bowman can't see a way to allow MT to speak? Perhaps what changed was him learning more info or as he says "ALL" about the investigation?

IDK, but seeing someone backtrack and retrade a deal is rarely a good sign in any working relationship. Atty B. does seems to have some kind of working relationship with Atty Weinstein as indicated in the transcript, but perhaps he really has no options in his mind in his defense of MT?

IDK. Many questions here about Atty B. and MT. But based on the deposition questions IMO MT is deeply mired in the muck that was the life of FD. Him sending her to NYC to get records on the Farber estate put MT front and centre in direct knowledge of the money involved and give her a huge motive to stay put and put down stakes at 4Jx in my mind.

MOO MOO MOO

It is indeed baffling. Could he have just been muttering nonsense as a result of nervousness? But the statement does correspond to his statement that the charges against MT are serious. I just don’t see how one defense attn. knows all the evidence when the co-defendant attn. claims he has nothing. I agree that the deposition questions were softball, but the answer to many of them could certainly provide the criminal case with mountains of motive.


MOO, Moo, moo…

 

[afitzy]

It is indeed baffling. Could he have just been muttering nonsense as a result of nervousness? But the statement does correspond to his statement that the charges against MT are serious. I just don’t see how one defense attn. knows all the evidence when the co-defendant attn. claims he has nothing. I agree that the deposition questions were softball, but the answer to many of them could certainly provide the criminal case with mountains of motive.


MOO, Moo, moo…

Frankly, I would be 'super' worried if anyone told me that they know everything about what is going on!

Did Atty [REDACTED] know 'everything' when AW2 was dropped on MT? I'm no so sure he did or called that one correctly either.

As far as I'm concerned just let the charges keep stacking until both MT and FD are sitting with enough potential prison time to spend life in prison if convicted by a jury at trial and then we might/maybe/perhaps/possibly just see a 'change in heart' from MT (PS. This doesn't mean I at all believe MT has a heart as I believe her to be amoral and absolutely absent any conscience as a human being but at a certain level self interest comes into play and IMO the State just hasn't yet found where this 'spot' is for MT and Atty [REDACTED]).

MOO

 

[sleuth66]

It is indeed baffling. Could he have just been muttering nonsense as a result of nervousness? But the statement does correspond to his statement that the charges against MT are serious. I just don’t see how one defense attn. knows all the evidence when the co-defendant attn. claims he has nothing. I agree that the deposition questions were softball, but the answer to many of them could certainly provide the criminal case with mountains of motive.


MOO, Moo, moo…

Another interesting line from the deposition is AB saying that he has all the evidence from the state, he’s worried about further charges and doesn’t want to go on record, but even having MT admit to KNOWING FD on record could jeopardize her.
That must mean that LE has some really dirty dirt on FD at the very least, and MT too. Because it is not hard to show that MT knows FD of course, but legally it’s so bad that MT even saying she knows FD will incriminate her. I’m not excusing AB here, just pointing out the absolute desperation this is coming from.

I really got the sense at the end that AB was being rather conciliatory and trying hard to explain that the criminal evidence is so bad that MT can’t even risk saying where she was born if that will tether her to FD and the crime. (Joking in the where she’s born question, but basically she (and especially FD) is so hamstrung by the evidence AB already has from LE that she can’t afford to say anything at all!)

I point this out to say that is likely a really great sign that FD is not going to get away with this. They may be prancing around with their ankle monitors now, but once the evidence, just in the tampering case alone it appears, gets unsealed and brought into play, it could be a very very ugly ending for FD and MT.
MOO.
PS: this also likely means that the “final breakup” is all for show and engineered by AB. If he’s not letting her say she even knows FD on the record, he is surely advising her to sever all ties with him publicly and give the impression of as much distance as possible. There is always Instagram of course. MOO

 

[afitzy]

Another interesting line from the deposition is AB saying that he has all the evidence from the state, he’s worried about further charges and doesn’t want to go on record, but even having MT admit to KNOWING FD on record could jeopardize her.
That must mean that LE has some really dirty dirt on FD at the very least, and MT too. Because it is not hard to show that MT knows FD of course, but legally it’s so bad that MT even saying she knows FD will incriminate her. I’m not excusing AB here, just pointing out the absolute desperation this is coming from.

I really got the sense at the end that AB was being rather conciliatory and trying hard to explain that the criminal evidence is so bad that MT can’t even risk saying where she was born if that will tether her to FD and the crime. (Joking in the where she’s born question, but basically she (and especially FD) is so hamstrung by the evidence AB already has from LE that she can’t afford to say anything at all!)

I point this out to say that is likely a really great sign that FD is not going to get away with this. They may be prancing around with their ankle monitors now, but once the evidence, just in the tampering case alone it appears, gets unsealed and brought into play, it could be a very very ugly ending for FD and MT.
MOO.
PS: this also likely means that the “final breakup” is all for show and engineered by AB. If he’s not letting her say she even knows FD on the record, he is surely advising her to sever all ties with him publicly and give the impression of as much distance as possible. There is always Instagram of course. MOO

Yes, there is always Instagram and I'm still wondering why sometimes the rugs from "Argentina" take 3 days for delivery and other times they take 5 days for delivery?!? Perhaps it takes extra time to get the hides from China and imported to Argentina and then shipped to US? IDK. Would love to hear from anyone that has ordered one of these rugs or is what you are 'purchasing' not really a 'rug' at all? Enquiring minds just want to know!?!?!?!

Seriously though, Atty Bowman seems desperate to keep MT from speaking anywhere. But, as we have seen in other cases there is usually a point where the dynamic shifts and where the reality of possibly facing life in prison hits home and the cracks start to appear and conversation with the State moves forward. The big "BUT" in all this could be that the State no longer needs MT or her testimony and IMO this makes the Atty Bowman job much more challenging. Atty Bowman has been clear about wanting a jury trial for his client but I really do wonder if he meant this as his usual process so far as I know is to work out deals in advance of trial. Perhaps Atty Bowman has to work on "Plan B" and this means going the distance with MT all the way to trial and more stacked charges and no doubt a long prison sentence if convicted by the jury.

MOO

 

[BellaVita]

So, where did Atty Bowman get his information in order to say that he knows EVERYTHING the STATE has?

Or, maybe Atty B was telling the truth and he does know all which then leads to the question of WHY?
_________________________________________________________________

IMO the Atty Weinstein deposition was tough but also something of a long series of 'softball' questions. We didn't see some characters known to be part of the case that MT would clearly have known named in the deposition. Atty Weinstein also stayed true to his word about not crossing the bridge into questions regarding the criminal case. I do still believe that Atty B retraded his original deal with Atty Weinstein for whatever reason and looks to be IMO someone with questionable integrity as it relates to his dealings in this case on behalf of MT OR something major happened between when he first cracked a deal on the deposition with Atty Weinstein and so Atty Bowman can't see a way to allow MT to speak? Perhaps what changed was him learning more info or as he says "ALL" about the investigation?
_________________________________________________________________

IDK. Many questions here about Atty B. and MT. But based on the deposition questions IMO MT is deeply mired in the muck that was the life of FD. Him sending her to NYC to get records on the Farber estate put MT front and centre in direct knowledge of the money involved and give her a huge motive to stay put and put down stakes at 4Jx in my mind.

MOO MOO MOO

RSBM for focus:
1. AB is ambiguous in his statement to the court. On one hand, he claims to "know everything the State has" but almost qualified that statement in a previous sentence by saying "merely knowledgeable to the extent a defense attorney can be". Also, he says he is not making a "claim" in regard to knowing all the evidence. Ummm, AB you actually DID make a claim of knowing everything. This whole exchange also caught my eye the most.

AB seems to be a very nervous person. AB can try anything he wants, like a motion for blanket 5th Amendment protection, and hope it sticks. If it is denied, there is no loss for MT. They tried and failed. IMO, possible next step after that fails, if it does, there may be written objection to each individual question. A judge could toss some questions and allow others. I think AB knows that MT is [REDACTED] and doesn't know what else to do. IDK. Boring, lying client and milquetoast attorney. Not a good combo for either one.

2. As for Weinstein questions, a deposition usually starts with softball questions, IMO, to make the witness comfortable. I think most questions asked, Weinstein knows the answers already. Even in a deposition, I think you have to be very careful what you ask and have a good idea of whether a possible answer could backfire. These questions were very targeted and methodical, mostly wanting to know how FORE/FD operate.

Finally at the very bottom of page 16 is where things start to get scary. Questions about bringing assets to Greece, the 2 cars in Greece, who is paying for FD lawyer. Then it goes right back to travel exploits. Which I understand the reasons for these questions. It was just odd how the Greece money questions got sandwiched in like they were out of order. But then after the travel questions were done, again other things like asking if ever direct contact with Jennifer, divorce causing business problems, socializing at 4JC, dinner parties and who specifically attended, storage unit. Then back to more mundane things.

3. I think some of the questions asked could be tossed as irrelevant to the civil case and implicate her in the criminal case. JMO. The probate run? Wow. I wonder how that came to light? IDK how it works in NY but in FL, you would need to go to the court house and show ID and you could look at them. The party whose documents you had looked at wouldn't be notified. I am sure a record would be kept of who accessed the records due to Sunshine Law being very extensive but someone would have to be sharp enough to request that info.

 

[BellaVita]

Bingo! And if LA was Team FD, she would have warned him not to come to the NYC apartment where the children were staying, because the armed guard would not let him see them, much less take them. LA is not subversive, IMO.

I am not saying LA is Team FD, but I don't think the knowledge of the armed guards would have made a difference. He wanted those kids, at least some of them, and I think FD would have showed up anyway. He likely thought since he is the father, the police would let him take the kids. JMO.

 

[afitzy]

Regarding the Civil Case has anyone seen anything about whether Atty Markowitz ever produced the file materials that were to have been delivered to Atty Weinstein weeks ago? Are we to assume the file materials were delivered unless Atty Weinstein makes another motion to the court to say that the discovery request has not been complied with? I have been quite concerned about these files as they no doubt are quite important to the case IMO.

MOO

 

[joypath]

I was also surprised when Attn. B also said he knows everything that the State has.

Wishful thinking!...'specially since it's an ongoing investigation.
Oh yeah, just a point about depos..it's the opportunity to "lock in" future testimony/expert opinion to use at trial OR "deal" making.
Depositions are serious legal experiences, not to be taken lightly & depending on the attorney's skill set, can be contentious!
For the record, Atty W is a stealth questioner of enormous skill.

 

[kimch33kim]

The rugs are in Florida and MoMma ships them out for MT since they don't have too many sales. And they use USPS that's why it takes that many days. Then MT reimburses MomMa

 

[kimch33kim]

According to what I read in the deposition it seems like Weinstein was trying to catch her slipping when he asked her if FD told her how much his legal fees are costing; I think Weinstein was insinuating that they disregard the no contact order and still contact each other JMO

 

[Jmoose]

RSBM for focus:
1. AB is ambiguous in his statement to the court. On one hand, he claims to "know everything the State has" but almost qualified that statement in a previous sentence by saying "merely knowledgeable to the extent a defense attorney can be". Also, he says he is not making a "claim" in regard to knowing all the evidence. Ummm, AB you actually DID make a claim of knowing everything. This whole exchange also caught my eye the most.

AB seems to be a very nervous person. AB can try anything he wants, like a motion for blanket 5th Amendment protection, and hope it sticks. If it is denied, there is no loss for MT. They tried and failed. IMO, possible next step after that fails, if it does, there may be written objection to each individual question. A judge could toss some questions and allow others. I think AB knows that MT is [REDACTED] and doesn't know what else to do. IDK. Boring, lying client and milquetoast attorney. Not a good combo for either one.

2. As for Weinstein questions, a deposition usually starts with softball questions, IMO, to make the witness comfortable. I think most questions asked, Weinstein knows the answers already. Even in a deposition, I think you have to be very careful what you ask and have a good idea of whether a possible answer could backfire. These questions were very targeted and methodical, mostly wanting to know how FORE/FD operate.

Finally at the very bottom of page 16 is where things start to get scary. Questions about bringing assets to Greece, the 2 cars in Greece, who is paying for FD lawyer. Then it goes right back to travel exploits. Which I understand the reasons for these questions. It was just odd how the Greece money questions got sandwiched in like they were out of order. But then after the travel questions were done, again other things like asking if ever direct contact with Jennifer, divorce causing business problems, socializing at 4JC, dinner parties and who specifically attended, storage unit. Then back to more mundane things.

3. I think some of the questions asked could be tossed as irrelevant to the civil case and implicate her in the criminal case. JMO. The probate run? Wow. I wonder how that came to light? IDK how it works in NY but in FL, you would need to go to the court house and show ID and you could look at them. The party whose documents you had looked at wouldn't be notified. I am sure a record would be kept of who accessed the records due to Sunshine Law being very extensive but someone would have to be sharp enough to request that info.

In order to look at the probate records, would you have to sign something? Like, when I visit my safe deposit box, I have to check in at the desk at the bank, and sign my name-does this happen with those kinds of records? Obviously, Weinstein knows she did it, or he wouldn’t have asked-but how does he know?

 

[Seattle1]

Dave Altimari‏ @davealtimari
Supreme Court sets December date for gag order hearing in Dulos case

Supreme Court sets December date for gag order hearing in Dulos case

11:52 AM - 11 Nov 2019

ETA: Dec 12, 2019 Arguments on gag order

 

[Jmoose]

Regarding the Civil Case has anyone seen anything about whether Atty Markowitz ever produced the file materials that were to have been delivered to Atty Weinstein weeks ago? Are we to assume the file materials were delivered unless Atty Weinstein makes another motion to the court to say that the discovery request has not been complied with? I have been quite concerned about these files as they no doubt are quite important to the case IMO.

MOO

This is something I want to know the answer to, also-it should have come up again from Weinstein, I think, if Markowitz didn’t produce them. But maybe Weinstein just hasn’t gotten around to it yet

 

[kimch33kim]

In order to look at the probate records, would you have to sign something? Like, when I visit my safe deposit box, I have to check in at the desk at the bank, and sign my name-does this happen with those kinds of records? Obviously, Weinstein knows she did it, or he wouldn’t have asked-but how does he know?

I wonder if he had MT fill out the forms with JD's information and pose as JD to get the information. and those forms are definitely on file so they can backtrack on the date and maybe there is surveillance footage or some other type of time stamped data which proves JD was not there at that time and MT was,......JMOO

 

[Alathea]

dbm

 

[BellaVita]

In order to look at the probate records, would you have to sign something? Like, when I visit my safe deposit box, I have to check in at the desk at the bank, and sign my name-does this happen with those kinds of records? Obviously, Weinstein knows she did it, or he wouldn’t have asked-but how does he know?

OK, I made a call to a county Probate Court in NY. I was told that a non-party can go to the court house and sit at a computer anonymously to look at a case. And there won't be a record of it available to the other parties. There will be a record of a receipt with the person's name on it if they print something. So, maybe found in credit/debit receipts and backtracked? IDK! Any ideas.

 

[kimch33kim]

Taxes will be calculated from the state the purchaser lives in and the local tax of where its being shipped from FL. So nothing to do with CT tax~

 

[Alathea]

Taxes will be calculated from the state the purchaser lives in and the local tax of where its being shipped from FL. So nothing to do with CT tax~

Yes, I realized that immediately after posting it and deleted it

 

[sds71]

OK, I made a call to a county Probate Court in NY. I was told that a non-party can go to the court house and sit at a computer anonymously to look at a case. And there won't be a record of it available to the other parties. There will be a record of a receipt with the person's name on it if they print something. So, maybe found in credit/debit receipts and backtracked? IDK! Any ideas.

if it happened after JD was killed maybe a PI following MT and FD

 

[sds71]

247.00 11/12/2019 P REQUEST FOR ADJUDICATION COMPLEX LITIGATION (JD-CL-77)

(Re: #245.00)