IMO such an important step forward in CT. Will see if the Judiciary Committee has the will to push this initiative forward.
ON THE OTHER HAND, seeing ongoing comments from Atty. P. today on a topic that I believe he chooses to have zero understanding of or appreciation of is disheartening to say the least. But I guess misogynist dinosaurs who only seem to berate FEMALE reporters for doing their jobs will simply never get this dialog about DV and the CT Judiciary.
It was encouraging today to see a CT State Senator with an expansive understanding of DV and how it tragically touched the life of JFd for such a long as well as impacting her 5 children greatly IMO.
Dulos, through his lawyer Norm Pattis, has denied any involvement in the disappearance or death of Jennifer Farber Dulos. Pattis called it a “tragic mystery,” and accused Bergstein of “crisis-mongering.” Hysteria is not a sound basis for public policy,” he said.
To memorialise what I believe to be the profound ignorance of Atty. P. on the topic of DV, all references going forward by me about Atty. P., Pattis and Pattisville will be only in the color purple.
Atty. P. today IMO had the opportunity to step away from his Dulos case narrative and address a serious issue that impacts so many families in the State of CT. But Atty. P. wasn't able to accomplish this very simple task and instead yet again made it all about him and his client while denigrating the efforts of State Senator Bergstein. I do very much wonder if Atty. P. realises the extent of the DV endured over many years by JFd? I'm not sure he either knows or cares as he sees his mission as always defending his client at all costs. It will all eventually come out at trial and Fd will be branded as the serial abuser which he is and always has been and the jury will have no issues IMO seeing clearly the DV cycle at play in the Dulos relationship and family dynamic.
Sadly Atty. P.'s comments today on the issue of DV were very closely aligned with his prior comments regarding longtime DV victim KM STBX where he accused her of seeking her '15 min of fame' after she endured a court hearing regarding her encounter with Fd and ongoing abuse at the hands of her STBX, KM and where her Judge denied her request for a protective order.
Sadly IMO, Atty P./Pattisville simply doesn't want to get what families and children endure when DV is involved. Its sad IMO that in the year 2020 that so called educated professionals (term used quite loosely here in the description of Atty. P.!) such as Atty. P. revert to usage of words such as 'hysteria' when referring to the efforts of a State Senator who is making an effort to move dialog forward in CT on the topic of DV.
The comments today from Atty. P. were IMO moronic and tone deaf at a minimum, to say nothing of being disappointing to hear from a Member of the CT Bar. Why not simply stay silent?
MOO