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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #941
I have wondered if JD never made it into the Tacoma. Because of that lapse in time, I have thought that she possibly was disposed of before reaching Waveny Park. I'm not familiar with the area but I've looked at maps. It seems possible. It just seems awful risky to transfer a body there. But then, it was ALL risky. But then, FD would also have had to transfer all those garbage bags. MOO.
I always thought he used his spec house in New Canaan to temporarily store her alive or dead. He was cleaning it up a few days later even sweeping the front porch steps. Loud banging a that property the next morning still not explained.....but I think he would have taken her from there that day up north to somewhere: Farmington, woods enroute, bod of water, grave on private property, take your pick endless possibilities. They need help from MT or KM.....
 
  • #942
How will MT go out for a smoke?! :oops:

1. open a window
2. stand close to the opening but don’t hang your head out
3. puff, inhale, or inhale and puff
4. blow smoke out open window
 
  • #943
not sure
I think NP has it written in his contract he has to bring up the 5th Amendment
in every case
JK

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)).

Does Atty. P. think that today's date is 1/10/83????

Curious to see the entire motion. Has anyone seen a copy?
 
  • #944
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?
Perfection!

You have summed up Atty. P. perfectly in ONE SENTENCE!

MOO
 
  • #945
Interesting. When I got married in 2009, we received a bunch of checks made out to us both. When I went to my bank (we use separate accounts, mine is People's United), I was told my husband also needed to sign. Maybe because separate accounts.
Yes, because separate accounts. Also, some things have changed. Bank of America would not let me deposit ex's checks made out solely to him with me signing underneath him. I was sole account holder. They said he had to be with me and show ID. It didn't used to be that way.
 
  • #946
'I Will Fight': Norm Pattis Is Standing by a Man Accused of Murder | Connecticut Law Tribune

Quotes from article:

From Atty. P.:
His financial situation is not as bad as people have suggested. It’s actually quite good.”

What’s not good for the defense: the constant news coverage. “There is a saying that there is never too much media publicity for an attorney.

I’m not sure about that in this case,” Pattis said. “It’s been awkward and embarrassing.”

-------------------------------------------------------
Did we ever figure out in the earlier thread whether 'delusional behaviour' is contagious?

Stunning comments IMO.

MOO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #947
I
Does Atty. P. think that today's date is 1/10/83????

Curious to see the entire motion. Has anyone seen a copy?
I posted it upthread
 
  • #948
A bit more info on Grand Juries in CT:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt\olr\htm/98-R-1101.htm

Quotes from above link:

September 3, 1998 98-R-1101

FROM: Christopher Reinhart, Research Attorney

RE: Connecticut Grand Juries

You asked for a summary of Connecticut grand jury law including how grand juries are set up, who makes appointments, and the conditions for establishing a grand jury investigation.

SUMMARY

Under Connecticut law, crimes charged by the state on or after May 26, 1983 are prosecuted by complaint or information, rather than grand jury indictment. The grand jury's function is limited to conducting investigations of governmental corruption, Medicaid vendor fraud, racketeering, election law violations, and felonies punishable by more than five years imprisonment, for which the chief state's attorney or a state's attorney can show that there is no other means of obtaining information as to whether a crime has been committed or the perpetrator's identity.

The investigatory grand jury is a judge, judge referee, or three-judge panel. A panel of three superior court judges appoints the grand jury in response to an application by a judge, justice, chief state's attorney, or a state's attorney that demonstrates there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. If the applicant is the chief state's attorney or a state's attorney, he also must demonstrate that normal investigatory methods have failed, are likely to fail, or are too dangerous and state the reasons why he believes that a grand jury investigation will lead to a finding of probable cause that a crime was committed.

The grand jury and attorneys or state's attorneys who are asked to assist it may subpoena people to testify before it and produce documents. Witnesses appearing before the grand jury must be informed of their right to have counsel present and, if they are targets, they must be advised of their right to remain silent. At the conclusion of the investigation, the grand jury must file its finding of whether there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed with the court and the prosecutor, if any, who applied for the grand jury.

CONNECTICUT GRAND JURY LAW

Grand Jury Indictment Requirement Repealed

On November 24, 1982, Connecticut adopted a constitutional amendment to repeal the requirement of a grand jury indictment before a person can be tried for any crime punishable by death or life imprisonment, and to require, instead, a probable cause hearing. It retained the investigatory grand jury, defined by statute as a judge, constitutional state referee or three-judge panel appointed “to conduct an investigation into the commission of a crime or crimes” (see CGS § 54-47b).
 
  • #949
I always thought he used his spec house in New Canaan to temporarily store her alive or dead. He was cleaning it up a few days later even sweeping the front porch steps. Loud banging a that property the next morning still not explained.....but I think he would have taken her from there that day up north to somewhere: Farmington, woods enroute, bod of water, grave on private property, take your pick endless possibilities. They need help from MT or KM.....
The ex employee was at the NC house the entire day. I seriously doubt he took her there. MOO.
 
  • #950
NP....GAG Order....how many ways and languages can it be said to him....Courts need to do something....now
 
  • #951
  • #952
Yes, I guess this could play out. MT has a young daughter and you'd think she would have done anything she could 8 months ago to get this off her back,
yet there she is in the yellow suit. Even if she was knowingly involved, given that her boyfriend has just killed his wife, wouldn't you think she might be saying to LE - "He threatened to kill me too if I didn't help him out...I was so afraid for my life too!!". FD has something on her. Either that, or she is just as cold-hearted as him and doesn't give a damn about her kid.

Quite possible that he's aware of some possible importing schemes by her - perhaps that he too was in on, .but I can't imagine that they'd have the jail time that conspiracy to murder does.

If I were close to her, I'd encourage her to talk - even if FO knows of other crimes she has committed.

That is, if she doesn't want to spend most of her adult life in jail.
 
Last edited:
  • #953
Found this Peoples Bank Deposit Agreement:

peoples bank of ct deposit agreement

Quote from above regarding Joint Accounts:

Joint Account

This is an account in the names of two or more persons that is payable to any one of the persons or the survivor. We are entitled to rely on instructions regarding a joint account (including, but not limited to, honoring checks, orders, or withdrawals) from any person named as a joint owner. All deposits or additions to the account will become the property of each owner as joint tenants, and any joint owner may withdraw the entire amount in the account.

Any joint owner has the authority to endorse for deposit to your joint account any check, draft, or other Item payable to any or all of the joint owners of the account. For certain checks, such as a check drawn on the U.S. Treasury, we may require all persons to whom the check is payable to endorse it.

We will not be liable to any owner for continuing to honor checks or other orders drawn by, or withdrawal requests from, any owner, even if we receive written notice signed by an owner not to pay or deliver any joint deposit or addition or accrual thereon. However, after the receipt of such notice, we may require the written authorization of any or all joint owners for any further payments or transactions on the account. At our sole discretion, we may decide to place a hold on or close the account.

We may be required by service of legal process to remit funds held in a joint account to satisfy a judgment entered against, or other valid debt incurred by, any owner of the account. If you or any other joint owner dies, we may honor checks or orders drawn by, or withdrawal requests from, the surviving joint owner(s). After you or any joint owner dies, we may treat the money in your account as the sole property of the surviving joint owners of the account who are still alive.

------------

Possibly the Chubb checks would be treated like Treasury checks and both signatures would be required. IDK.

I'm punting on these Chubb checks for now as I am sure Atty Colangelo and his team are all over the issue as no doubt the Legal Dept at People's Bank and their attys at Pullman and Comley are involved as sadly People's Bank is now sitting with a substantial sum of money lent to Fd for which not even interest is being paid.

Wonder if this money borrowed by Fd/FORE is being treated as a 'fraud' or business loan gone bad and so is on its way to "Workout Dept"?

Don't think People's or Danbury Savings Bank will have an easy go collecting on their loans here unfortunately. Sad IMO to see small local banks hit with these potential loan losses from unscrupulous characters such as Fd.

As they always say, "Money is Fungible"! Wonder how much of this "Fungible Money" has made it into the pockets of Atty. P.? Did Fd undertake to get as much cash as he could from two local banks so that he could simply pay his legal bills and survive awaiting trial? Did Fd ever have any intentions of repaying the banks, or was this simply a big game of "CATCH ME IF YOU CAN"?

MOO
 
Last edited:
  • #954
'I Will Fight': Norm Pattis Is Standing by a Man Accused of Murder | Connecticut Law Tribune

Known for his blunt talk, fierce advocacy and controversial clients, New Haven attorney Norm Pattis is no stranger to infamy.
Fellow attorneys follow his cases. And love him or hate him, the firebrand is one of Connecticut’s best-known attorneys.
But among his clients: a man accused of murder, and one being sued for pushing a conspiracy theory about a mass shooting at an elementary school. The men are at once high-profile and unpopular figures: Alex Jones, who Sandy Hook families are suing for defamation, and Fotis Dulos, arrested this week on suspicion of murdering his missing wife, the mother of five children.
Pattis was in Austin, Texas, Friday to meet with Jones. But the lawyer says the press has bombarded him with questions about the Connecticut murder case. His client was charged Tuesday with the murder of his wife, Jennifer, who disappeared May 24.
Dulos posted a $6 million bond two days later.
Within hours, by Friday morning, Pattis said he fielded no less than 15 media calls, requesting interviews on Dulos. And he often obliges, saying he has a message for the media, law enforcement and the public.
“You have not seen the half of it [evidence],” the Pattis & Smith partner said. “We will win. We have a strong case.”
Prosecutors have also charged two other people with conspiracy to commit murder: Fotis Dulos’ former girlfriend, Michelle Troconis, and his friend, attorney Kent Mawhinney.
But Pattis argues the state arrested Dulos on circumstantial evidence.
“I will not stand idly by and see my client sacrificed and maligned,” he said. “I will fight fire with fire.”
His strategy moving forward: “master the evidence the state has, and to see whether it supports their theory and to develop alternative theories consistent with his innocence,” Pattis said.
In other words, focus on shifting suspicion, but raising arguments that someone other than her husband is responsible for Jennifer Dulos’ disappearance.
“If she is a victim of foul play, it’s at the hands of someone else,” Pattis said.
Richard Colangelo Jr., the state’s attorney for the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District where the case will be tried, did not respond to a request for comment Friday.
Public eye
Meanwhile, Pattis said he’s “disappointed” with how prosecutors and law enforcement officials have handled the case.
“They locked on to Mr. Dulos from day one,” Pattis said. ”They changed their motive. First, it was about divorce, and now they are claiming he had a financial crisis. His financial situation is not as bad as people have suggested. It’s actually quite good.”
What’s not good for the defense: the constant news coverage.
“There is a saying that there is never too much media publicity for an attorney. I’m not sure about that in this case,” Pattis said. “It’s been awkward and embarrassing.”
But despite the publicity, the attorney thinks Dulos can get a fair trial in Connecticut.
Picking a jury just might take a little longer, he said.
Until then, Pattis said he and his legal team speak to Dulos, who is now under house arrest, several times a day.
“I’ll see to it that he has a fair trial,” Pattis said. “It takes patience sometimes. My theory is you do not need jury consultants. But rather, when you look at a juror, do they listen and resonate and respond to you?”

Someone called it a few threads back- Someone said that talking about motive allows the defense to start an argument off the topic of evidence. I was intrigued by the point then, and I’m awestruck now. That is exactly what happened.
 
  • #955
Found this Peoples Bank Deposit Agreement:

peoples bank of ct deposit agreement

Quote from above regarding Joint Accounts:

Joint Account

This is an account in the names of two or more persons that is payable to any one of the persons or the survivor. We are entitled to rely on instructions regarding a joint account (including, but not limited to, honoring checks, orders, or withdrawals) from any person named as a joint owner. All deposits or additions to the account will become the property of each owner as joint tenants, and any joint owner may withdraw the entire amount in the account.

Any joint owner has the authority to endorse for deposit to your joint account any check, draft, or other Item payable to any or all of the joint owners of the account. For certain checks, such as a check drawn on the U.S. Treasury, we may require all persons to whom the check is payable to endorse it.

We will not be liable to any owner for continuing to honor checks or other orders drawn by, or withdrawal requests from, any owner, even if we receive written notice signed by an owner not to pay or deliver any joint deposit or addition or accrual thereon. However, after the receipt of such notice, we may require the written authorization of any or all joint owners for any further payments or transactions on the account. At our sole discretion, we may decide to place a hold on or close the account.

We may be required by service of legal process to remit funds held in a joint account to satisfy a judgment entered against, or other valid debt incurred by, any owner of the account. If you or any other joint owner dies, we may honor checks or orders drawn by, or withdrawal requests from, the surviving joint owner(s). After you or any joint owner dies, we may treat the money in your account as the sole property of the surviving joint owners of the account who are still alive.

Key words...."MAY"
 
  • #956
fd motion to dismiss
Thanks for this info! Looks like a combination of the latest "Motion to Dismiss" and the "Juvenile Court" motion regarding custody documents.

The "Motion to Dismiss" is amusing in that while Atty. P. goes back in time to the era of the Magna Carta that there is no similar look forward to the 1983 timeframe when the CT Law for Grand Juries was changed. Why?

Perhaps a deep dive into the purpose of "Probable Cause Hearings" in CT might be in order here by Atty. P.? My recollection was that Judge Blawie asked in Court this week whether you intended to 'waive' probable cause hearing and I think you mumbled, "...maybe, I don't know".... Simple suggestion here is to GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT!

Unbelievable IMO that motions of the caliber such as is being submitted here for dismissal by Atty. P. isn't just kicked back directly by a Court Clerk and never sees the light of day from a Judge?

MOO
 
  • #957
fd motion to dismiss
Thanks for this info! Looks like a combination of the latest "Motion to Dismiss" and the "Juvenile Court" motion regarding custody documents.

The "Motion to Dismiss" is amusing in that while Atty. P. goes back in time to the era of the Magna Carta that there is no similar look forward to the 1983 timeframe when the CT Law for Grand Juries was changed. Why?

Perhaps a deep dive into the purpose of "Probable Cause Hearings" in CT might be in order here by Atty. P.? My recollection was that Judge Blawie asked in Court this week whether you intended to 'waive' probable cause hearing and I think you mumbled, "...maybe, I don't know".... Simple suggestion here is to GIVE IT SOME THOUGHT!

Unbelievable IMO that motions of the caliber such as is being submitted here for dismissal by Atty. P. isn't just kicked back directly by a Court Clerk and never sees the light of day from a Judge?

MOO
 
  • #958
Not from AW3 IMO.

From KM's arrest warrant, LE has from "Call Detail Records" of KM's cell phone, his phone at 4 JX from 7:29-8:22.
 
  • #959
Strange, I'm not seeing that? I see KM says he was there, but no pings from his phone. I'll have to go through it again in detail later.

The heading identifies the information as "Call Detail Records..."
 
  • #960
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
100
Guests online
2,428
Total visitors
2,528

Forum statistics

Threads
632,713
Messages
18,630,840
Members
243,270
Latest member
lawwilkes
Back
Top