Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #36

[Alathea]

Perhaps the poncho was used to suffocate JF after she was zip tied.

Moo

I'm thinking that if FD brought her intact to 80MS where he did the cleanup, and where he spent quite a bit of time, that he would have needed 2 ponchos - one for him and one for MT - if he were going to dismember.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I’m not looking for a discussion any further. And it’s not the murder I’m posting about but the legal proceedings.
You have your opinions, most of which I agree with. I have mine, and had I been the judge I would have put his behind in jail as long as it took to get ALL of the court orders complied with early on.
Like I said, when I’ve seen non-complying parties held in contempt, fined AND JAILED, it’s amazing how quickly things begin to move along to a resolution.

Thank you for your rational and common sense opinion. I agree. I’ve seen it in my own life.

 

[Alathea]

Ha! Called it!

What a narcissistic hack.

Actually if I were the defendant and my lawyer were filing frivolous motions, I'd be pissed if I were being billed for them.

But perhaps the taxpayers in the State of CT are actually paying for his defense and these frivolous motions; who knows?

(And why hasn't the CT press been extremely vocal about this, to try to find out?)

 

[MassGuy]

I'm thinking that if FD brought her intact to 80MS where he did the cleanup, and where he spent quite a bit of time, that he would have needed 2 ponchos - one for him and one for MT - if he were going to dismember.

I don’t think anything like that happened here. FD didn’t have a great deal of time, and it’s completely unnecessary to dismember someone if you are going to bury them (which is what I think he did).

That aside, it also would run the risk of leaving quite a bit of physical evidence behind. There’s a reasonable chance that such evidence would have been found.

With the benefit of more time, I also think FD would have come up with something slightly better than dumping evidence via that trash disposal escapade.

He was rushing.

 

[BellaVita]

When I was a Bank Manager (for several different banks in Connecticut) we scrutinized the endorsements on large checks, especially insurance checks and tax refund checks for the exact scenario that a couple could possibly be in the midst of a divorce. You are not supposed to accept “for deposit only” the checks should have both signature if the names were joined by AND and not OR. Not to say some tellers are lax about it. But if an issue arose down the road and an endorsement was missing they would be on the hook.

Come to think of it, when someone had a mortgage on their house, and an insurance check was issued for some type of damage claim (if this is what FDs checks were for) the check would be made out to BOTH spouses AND the bank holding the mortgage. The (mortgage holding) bank would have to endorse the check as well and depending on dollar amount and amount of mortgage held, might require they send out an inspector to the house to confirm the repairs on the house were complete and up to code.

Someone else posted that it's acceptable to write Deposit Only according to UCC. Maybe some banks have their own stricter policy?

 

[Alathea]

I don’t think anything like that happened here. FD didn’t have a great deal of time, and it’s completely unnecessary to dismember someone if you are going to bury them (which is what I think he did).

That aside, it also would run the risk of leaving quite a bit of physical evidence behind. There’s a reasonable chance that such evidence would have been found.

With the benefit of more time, I also think FD would have come up with something slightly better than dumping evidence via that trash disposal escapade.

He was rushing.

Possible. I still think it likely he did do a dismemberment, with the intent to have all evidence go through MIRA. It would also dissolve faster, even if she were buried.

Your suggestion is just as viable, though.

I have a feeling LE knows!

 

[Nanobody]

fd motion to dismiss

Here's how I interpret Norm's latest motion..

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Alathea]

Here's how I interpret Norm's latest motion..

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

PERFECT!

 

[Jen3135]

Someone else posted that it's acceptable to write Deposit Only according to UCC. Maybe some banks have their own stricter policy?

I saw that after I wrote this. This was 10+ years ago when I worked for a bank. I guess the bank avoids liability now.

 

[Alkali13]

not sure
I think NP has it written in his contract he has to bring up the 5th Amendment
in every case
JK

HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT'S INDICTING GRAND JURY

Before November 1982, Connecticut's constitution required a grand jury indictment as a prerequisite to the prosecution of anyone charged with a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment. This right to a grand jury determination of probable cause had its origin in our early statutory and common law and became part of our constitutional rights when the first state constitution was adopted in 1818 (Nahum & Schatz, “The Grand Jury in Connecticut,” 5 Conn. B.J. 111-21 (1931)). Although originally conceived as a shielding device to protect individuals from unfounded prosecutions, the grand jury system came to be widely criticized for its secret operation and its ex parte nature (“Connecticut Grand Juries: The Case for Reform,” 54 Conn. B.J. 8, 9-16 (1980)).

In Connecticut, an accused was permitted to attend the grand jury session and to question witnesses. However, he was not permitted to present evidence in his own behalf or to be represented by counsel. In addition, in order to preserve the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, the law carefully limited the use of the transcript of the session.

The statutory shield to the grand jury transcript meant that a person against whom an indictment had been returned was effectively precluded from obtaining court review of the evidentiary basis of the indictment. Under CGS § 54-45a(b), the grand jury “may not be used as evidence in any proceeding against the accused except for the purpose of impeaching a witness, attacking the credibility of a witness or proving inconsistent statements of a witness.” Such transcript may also be used as evidence in a prosecution for perjury committed by a witness while giving such testimony.

To try to correct these problems with the grand jury system and to provide more protections to an accused charged with a serious crime, the legislature in 1981 proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish the grand jury indictment system in Connecticut and to replace it with an open and adversarial probable cause hearing (Substitute House Joint Resolution No. 36 (1981)). The voters approved this proposed amendment on November 2, 1982. The secretary of the state certified it on November 24, 1982, as Amendment Seventeen to the Connecticut Constitution (State v. Sanabria, 192 Conn. 671 (1984)).

In 1983, PA 83-210 limited the statutory requirement of a grand jury indictment for crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment to make it applicable only to people charged with such crimes before May 26, 1983. It imposed the probable cause hearing requirement for people charged after May 25, 1983 (CGS §§ 54-46 and 54-46a (1983)).

I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong, but this makes it sound like they are attempting to discuss the charges based on an antiquated statute that no longer applies?

 

[sds71]

I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong, but this makes it sound like they are attempting to discuss the charges based on an antiquated statute that no longer applies?

I think it was last used with Skakel

 

[Alathea]

Dumb question - but is it legal for police to have tapped his phones or to see what he searches for on his computer when he is under house arrest?

Hi Amis! Welcome to WS!

Do you have inside info that they tapped his phones?

ETA: It is possible for them to do this. I am not sure what they have in place now.

It's also possible the FBI is involved.

 

[LittleBitty]

Can he get any traction with this? Not familiar with lack of Grand Jury violating Fifth Amendment rights - is this a Pattis attempt at more "foolery" as someone said earlier. Love that word - foolery!

If the prosecutor had gone to the Grand Jury and they had chose "true bill" meaning to indict then NP would be screaming that Grand Juries can indict a ham sandwich. Grand juries only decide whether or not charges can be brought. They meet in secret and the defendant has no right to be present. Their decision doesn't even need to be unanimous.

Most people try to avoid criminal activity. Just an FYI, Norm. Wasn't sure he was aware that most of us do indeed try to avoid criminal activity like murder and kidnapping and tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution.

Here is what happens (if at any point someone with more legal knowledge wants to chime in please do so):
FD committed a crime.
Police create a report or an Arrest Warrant.
Police give AW or report to the prosecutor.

The prosecutor can do one of three things:
a) File a compliant with the trial court setting forth the charges
b) Go to a Grand Jury
c) Elect not to pursue the matter

If the prosecutor chooses option (a) and the case is a felony (meaning the prosecutor chooses to bypass the Grand Jury to file a complaint) then a preliminary hearing is held.
At the preliminary hearing the prosecution must demonstrate to the JUDGE that the state has enough evidence to warrant a trial.

In short, FoDU's constitutional rights are not violated. The prosecutor doesn't not have to go to a Grand Jury.

By the way, isn't this what Norm Pattis wants. FoDu's day in court. I would think he would be salivating over a preliminary hearing. The prosecution has to prove to a judge that the case against FoDU should go to trial. They have to show a lot more of their hand if necessary than we have seen so far.

I thought this was what NP wanted. The case is weak, says Pattis. The AWs are weak, NP says. FoDu wants to testify and prove his innocence. Okeedokee Norm. I'd be arguing for a preliminary hearing ASAP if I really felt that way. Which, IMO, NP does not. good luck with your obviously guilty client.

 

[Alkali13]

I'm thinking that if FD brought her intact to 80MS where he did the cleanup, and where he spent quite a bit of time, that he would have needed 2 ponchos - one for him and one for MT - if he were going to dismember.

I personally doubt MT would've been involved in the gruesome work. I think she really WAS cleaning other things while he took care of "disposal."

MOO.

 

[joypath]

I'm thinking that if FD brought her intact to 80MS where he did the cleanup, and where he spent quite a bit of time, that he would have needed 2 ponchos - one for him and one for MT - if he were going to dismember.

Dismemberment is hard, bloody work. Not sure fd could manage it by himself, not sure if he could handle the struggle of a fresh corpse: moving it, balancing it, the purge, & the "strength" of body tissues: ligaments, muscles & bones. Just as a "teaching tool", picture yourself disarticulating a raw large turkey....

 

[Alathea]

I personally doubt MT would've been involved in the gruesome work. I think she want WAS cleaning other things while he took care of "disposal."

MOO.

MT is very fond of/familiar with knives.
She also imports dead animal skins for a "living."

I'm not certain if she also sells knives - anyone know?

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Thank you for your rational and common sense opinion. I agree. I’ve seen it in my own life.

Thank you for distinguishing between the approaches.
I’m not saying every single litigant. Of course, that’s not possible. But in egregious circumstances, yes. Jail them. Egregious is very rare. I had one last year. Before that? Didn’t have any. There have been a few posters here with personal horror stories. Not many, even here compared to how many of us have gone through a divorce or know others who have gone through divorce. I would bet most have never seen anything close to this. Why? Bc that’s not how it usually works. They are contentious divorces, of course.
But if it’s egregious, yes, make the decisions needed to enforce compliance not only for the pending case, but as a deterrent to other wanna be the cause of problem litigants.
That’s my view based solely on my experiences.
Now, maybe we can assist DV Coalitions in Ct, and the various political representatives proposing new laws to avert these unnecessary outcomes.
Justice for Jennifer and those that face the same circumstances. Change is in the winds.

 

[spaz1959]

I personally doubt MT would've been involved in the gruesome work. I think she want WAS cleaning other things while he took care of "disposal."

MOO.

IMO MT absolutely was involved in any dismemberment.

 

[merrymary]

When I was a Bank Manager (for several different banks in Connecticut) we scrutinized the endorsements on large checks, especially insurance checks and tax refund checks for the exact scenario that a couple could possibly be in the midst of a divorce. You are not supposed to accept “for deposit only” the checks should have both signature if the names were joined by AND and not OR. Not to say some tellers are lax about it. But if an issue arose down the road and an endorsement was missing they would be on the hook.

Come to think of it, when someone had a mortgage on their house, and an insurance check was issued for some type of damage claim (if this is what FDs checks were for) the check would be made out to BOTH spouses AND the bank holding the mortgage. The (mortgage holding) bank would have to endorse the check as well and depending on dollar amount and amount of mortgage held, might require they send out an inspector to the house to confirm the repairs on the house were complete and up to code.

Jen....you definitely threw in the wrench here. Did they only have one property in both of their names? You are correct - if there is a mortgage on the property - the check should have been made payable to the lien holder as well.

 

[Alkali13]

Possible. I still think it likely he did do a dismemberment, with the intent to have all evidence go through MIRA. It would also dissolve faster, even if she were buried.

Your suggestion is just as viable, though.

I have a feeling LE knows!

When we first started discussing the possibility of dismemberment months ago, the topic of how long it would take came up. According to the internet, if you have an idea of what you are doing, it takes MUCH less time than you'd think. The average answer seemed to be under an hour, with twenty minutes being closer to the "skilled" answer.

From what I understand, FD has a background in tanning from childhood. I'd think it's a safe assumption that he might be able to dismember a human faster than the average bear.

I'm still not sure whether this is what happened, but it remains a viable option in my head.