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

[pseudo_hum]

Yes, MT's mother has been front and center and Andrew Bowman was quickly fired after MT was indicted for conspiracy to commit murder.

The Stamford Advocate ran and article on June 7, 2019, that summarized MT's mother creative work on her defense in Miami. It was part of an article about MT's arrest and the first interviews with police. Not sure it will work in this case.
It's also available on the Press Reader:
PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines.

Jennifer Dulos case: Michelle Troconis’ mother faced her own legal trouble

Arreaza and another woman were indicted on federal Medicaid fraud charges. Arreaza was accused of paying at least one person to become a Medicaid patient in her behavioral health practice, D & D Psych. The practice provided behavioral health counseling to children and adults in Miami-Dade County.

Wow, thanks for the info. No wonder FD was drawn to that family.

 

[ivegotthemic]

Thanks for introducing us to Wharton’s Rule, though I’ve found several online sources that disagree with your interpretation of it. Here’s one:
What is the WHARTON'S RULE? Law Dictionary | LexRoll.com

“Wharton’s Rule prevents a conspiracy conviction when an underlying substantive offense requires more than one actor, such as adultery or dueling, and in which the immediate consequences of the crime rest on the parties themselves rather than on society.”

Unlike adultery or dueling, the act of murder--or hindering prosecution-- doesn’t take more than one person to accomplish.

Note that the state has recently charged MT with both tampering with physical evidence and conspiracy to tamper with it. Sentencing is up to the court. Two different 20-yr sentences can be served simultaneously rather than consecutively, if the court rules that way.

Can you cite the CT statute that deals with Wharton's Rule?

Apologies if I created confusion, its hard to know the balance of providing to much information and not enough. So basically when I look up a statute, I usually then immediately look up the legislative notes/annotations, which are more in depth notes from law makers on the laws intent and then I usually try to find facts with similar cases to see how the state is applying the law. I left out a critical link my explanation which probably would have been super helpful.

Courts in Conn. have held that, under State v. Colon, 257 Conn. 587, 778 A.2d 875 (2001), “one can be tried for conspiracy while others either are found not guilty or ... are not indicted for the crime of conspiracy in the first instance.”


So no it makes no difference whether FD was charged with conspiracy because the courts dont require all co conspirators be charged. after re-reading my initial post im pretty sure my dyslexic brain switched the phrases Wharton's rule and double jeopardy, my apologies it was not my intent to confuse anyone. Sometimes a lesser charge merges with a greater charge because both statutes punish the defendant for the same conduct. this is more of s double jeopardy issue then a Wharton issue, apologies again (and please disregard the phrase Wharton rule from your memory, its super rare and you should use that mental space for something fun). Although a defendant may be charged by different staturwa, they may all be intended to punish the same conduct and therefore cause a double jeopardy issue.

"an examination of the legislative intent is necessary in order to avert multiple punishments for the same crime and thereby prevent the sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended.” Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366, 103 S.Ct. 673, 678, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983)."

‘ “Double jeopardy analysis in the context of a single trial is a two-step process. First, the charges must arise out of the same act or transaction. Second, it must be determined whether the charged crimes are the same offense. Multiple punishments are forbidden only if both conditions are met.” ’ State v. Boucino, 199 Conn. 207, 222, 506 A.2d 125 (1986).”

In Connecticut the court holds "the legislature intended that manslaughter in the first degree and felony murder “should be treated as a single crime for double jeopardy purposes.” State v. John, supra, 210 Conn. at 695, 557 A.2d 93. So my original thought that I totally failed to include was that FD may not have been charged with conspiracy because the Conspiracy to commit a crime and actual committing that same crime a deemed a single crime for sentencing purposes and out of habit just left it off the charges. for example if FDs only act in furthering the conspiracy was actually committing the murder, then being charge with homicide and conspiracy to commit homicide causes a double jeopardy violation. there could be several reasons they choose to charge this way but unfortunately we wont know for sure until everything comes out at trial. Apologies again for my dyslexia mix up, i really do like helping other people understand the crazy world of law so Im genuinely sorry for the mix up

 

[pernickety]

No problem, and honestly you can inbox me anytime. The law is usually not written in a way/style that makes it easy digestible for the public so im happy to translate legal speak into plain english when I can. Plus it feels good to know that going through the torture that is law school, hasn't been for nothing lol

Under the current CGS, right at top of the citations is reference to Wharton's Rule:
Latest CGS Sec. 53a-48. Conspiracy

Cited. 169 C. 377; Id., 517; Id., 642. Generally, may prosecute and sentence defendant for both conspiracy to commit offense and offense itself; Wharton's rule: An agreement by two persons to commit crime which necessarily requires participation of two persons cannot be prosecuted as conspiracy; rule currently valid only as presumption of legislative intent; exception to rule when more persons than required participate; abuse of conspiracy charge to bring in otherwise improper evidence.

 

[pernickety]

Courts in Conn. have held that, under State v. Colon, 257 Conn. 587, 778 A.2d 875 (2001), “one can be tried for conspiracy while others either are found not guilty or ... .”

Thanks v. much for State v. Colon. Hope that will apply to this case and that Att'y Colangelo knows about that case law--especially "are not indicted for the crime of conspiracy in the first instance."

 

[ivegotthemic]

Thanks v. much for State v. Colon. Hope that will apply to this case and that Att'y Colangelo knows about that case law--especially "are not indicted for the crime of conspiracy in the first instance."

happy to help, there was a ton of interesting case law to look through and i may have rabbitholed a bit lol

 

[Laughing]

Thanks for introducing us to Wharton’s Rule, though I’ve found several online sources that disagree with your interpretation of it. Here’s one:
What is the WHARTON'S RULE? Law Dictionary | LexRoll.com

“Wharton’s Rule prevents a conspiracy conviction when an underlying substantive offense requires more than one actor, such as adultery or dueling, and in which the immediate consequences of the crime rest on the parties themselves rather than on society.”

Unlike adultery or dueling, the act of murder--or hindering prosecution-- doesn’t take more than one person to accomplish.

Note that the state has recently charged MT with both tampering with physical evidence and conspiracy to tamper with it. Sentencing is up to the court. Two different 20-yr sentences can be served simultaneously rather than consecutively, if the court rules that way.

Can you cite the CT statute that deals with Wharton's Rule?

Gotta love the adultery tangent, since Fd had to provide sworn testimony about the extramarital affair with Michelle Troconis that included plane tickets in 2015!

Was she even divorced by then? The Florida divorce was conducted & is recorded in English, correct?

jmho ymmv lrr lrr lrr lrr lrr

 

[Tink56]

Gotta love the adultery tangent, since Fd had to provide sworn testimony about the extramarital affair with Michelle Troconis that included plane tickets in 2015!

Was she even divorced by then? The Florida divorce was conducted & is recorded in English, correct?

View attachment 262282

jmho ymmv lrr lrr lrr lrr lrr

LRR...love it!
That divorce, registered in Miami in English, was recorded in 2016. Guess MT couldn't wait to spend time with FD....

 

[Tink56]

Further response to above....
It's tough to be consumed with oneself...

Information from:
Girlfriend of Jennifer Dulos' husband has a lovechild with Argentinian Olympic skier | Daily Mail Online
Lots of interesting stuff in the above...

 

[HopeForTheBest]

Further response to above....
It's tough to be consumed with oneself...

Information from:
Girlfriend of Jennifer Dulos' husband has a lovechild with Argentinian Olympic skier | Daily Mail Online
Lots of interesting stuff in the above...

My gosh, I had forgotten about FD’s mom death and the driveway incident. And MT’s previous public-facing jobs in all those countries where English is spoken by many but I don’t know if Spanish is like in Saudi Arabia. We are so lucky in the states that so many people worldwide have learned English and I always admire people who work and live in countries where the first language is different from their own because it’s just not easy. Fluency in a language might not matter much in some positions but it seems as though it would for jobs like those listed for MT that involve interacting in depth with people such and in other countries like Dubai. I wonder how broadly Spanish is spoken there since she lately has said she needed an interpreter for at least one ear to understand English. Please don’t misunderstand me; I want anyone who needs an interpreter to have one especially in serious matters. It’s just puzzling in the context of MT’s background that she managed in high-profile jobs like she had but now has such trouble with the careful, focused words used in court matters. That type of conversation is much easier to follow than those that come up in day-to-day conversations like at work and in the public eye. It’s also interesting that she uses only one earpiece, not both, to listen to the interpreter, and keeps the other ear open to hear the English spoken, like everyone else there. Have you ever tried to listen to someone talk via an earbud in one of your ears while you listen to a conversation or anything at all using the other ear? It’s especially difficult if they are occurring simultaneously. It’s all so interesting to consider. MOO.

 

[Tink56]

Things are moving on the foreclosure on the 4JX foreclosure as debt continues to mount. The judge allowed a telephonic conference today and docket dates have been set:
HHD-CV19-6116846-S - DEAN, MARK H., AS TRUSTEE OF THE CT RE 2019 TRUST v. DULOS, FOTIS Et Al
# Date Time Event Description Status
1 09/14/2020 Short Calendar SC-14 #025
2 09/17/2020 8:30AM Remote Status Conference Proceeding

 

[pernickety]

Things are moving on the foreclosure on the 4JX foreclosure as debt continues to mount. The judge allowed a telephonic conference today and docket dates have been set:
HHD-CV19-6116846-S - DEAN, MARK H., AS TRUSTEE OF THE CT RE 2019 TRUST v. DULOS, FOTIS Et Al
# Date Time Event Description Status
1 09/14/2020 Short Calendar SC-14 #025
2 09/17/2020 8:30AM Remote Status Conference Proceeding

You’d think Chief Court Administrator Carroll would’ve made an exception and not stayed foreclosures of unoccupied houses. Remember Pattis telling Judge White that the sale of only one of FD’s houses would right his financial ship? And Colangelo saying uh, no,—the mortgage is greater than the market value?
And re the Farber Trustee’s case against Pattis for the remainder of his $250,000 fee, here’s an opinion of CT Bar ’n re:

Lawyer’s obligations when third parties assert claims to property in the lawyer’s possession (Rule 1.15 The safe-keeping of property)

In a nutshell-- Notify 3rd party, keep property separate, provide an accounting

https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-...ng-property-(rule-1-15).pdf?sfvrsn=95d68fa4_6

 

[CTGrammy]

You’d think Chief Court Administrator Carroll would’ve made an exception and not stayed foreclosures of unoccupied houses. Remember Pattis telling Judge White that the sale of only one of FD’s houses would right his financial ship? And Colangelo saying uh, no,—the mortgage is greater than the market value?
And re the Farber Trustee’s case against Pattis for the remainder of his $250,000 fee, here’s an opinion of CT Bar ’n re:

Lawyer’s obligations when third parties assert claims to property in the lawyer’s possession (Rule 1.15 The safe-keeping of property)

In a nutshell-- Notify 3rd party, keep property separate, provide an accounting

https://www.ctbar.org/docs/default-...ng-property-(rule-1-15).pdf?sfvrsn=95d68fa4_6

EXACTLY.

IMO.

 

[Tink56]

PEOPLE'S UNITED BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO FARMINGTON BANK VS FORE Group
The end of FORE Group continues....
118.00 09/01/2020 P EXHIBITS

Exhibits to Affidavit in Support of Motion for Judgment of Strict Foreclosure No
119.00 09/01/2020 P WITHDRAWAL OF ACTION AGAINST PARTICULAR DEFENDANT(S) – CASE REMAINS PENDING

No
120.00 09/01/2020 C JUDGMENT OF STRICT FORECLOSURE

RESULT: HON MARK TAYLOR No

ADDING THE ORDER:
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=19421230

 

[Tink56]

The following are from the docket for MT. You'll notice the "new" charges (underlined) do not have a plea associated with them. I wonder what changing to the charges means at this point?
53a-155 TAMPERING-PHYSICAL EVIDENCE D Felony 1 5/26/2019 Not Guilty
53a-155 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TAMPERING-PHYSICAL EVIDENCE D Felony 1 5/29/2019

53a-166* HINDERING PROSECUTION 2ND DEG C Felony 1 5/24/2019
53a-155 TAMPERING-PHYSICAL EVIDENCE D Felony 1 5/24/2019
53a-155 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TAMPERING-PHYSICAL EVIDENCE D Felony 1 5/24/2019

And, the biggie, to which she has already plead Not Guilty.
53a-54a CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER B Felony 1 5/24/2019 Not Guilty

 

[Laughing]

So does Ozzy Osborne speak Spanish? Mr. Laughing used to watch their show. I can imagine Sharon making an effort to learn Spanish.

Image from Girlfriend of Jennifer Dulos' husband has a lovechild with Argentinian Olympic skier | Daily Mail Online


I'd forgotten that GB was Michelle Troconis' boss when the child was conceived.
I'd forgotten that she was married to the race car driver when she jetted off (on Farber-paid tickets) with Fd, who was also her boss.

So in this job she has now, wonder who the boss is....

LRR, ya'know. LRR

JMHO YMMV

 

[Jmoose]

Really slowing down here...guess that’s good for MT and the defense she has mounted to fight her “battle”. Who is she-Joan of Arc?

 

[Laughing]

Really slowing down here...guess that’s good for MT and the defense she has mounted to fight her “battle”. Who is she-Joan of Arc?

Joan of Arc | Biography, Accomplishments, & Facts

Apparently Joan of Arc died at age 19, and skipped the part about The Boss that seems so important to Michelle Troconis.

Joan of Arc did try to get rid of English! Of course that was English people who had invaded her native France.

She didn't have a baby with one boss, move to another country, get married, start an affair with a married boss while still married herself.

Michelle Troconis won't convince me...praying she won't convince a jury!

Come on, Atty Colangelo, we're counting on you!

 

[Tink56]

Really slowing down here...guess that’s good for MT and the defense she has mounted to fight her “battle”. Who is she-Joan of Arc?

Perhaps...Some of it is the holiday weekend...Attorney Schoenhorn really wants everyone to disremember that MT and FD were poisonous together resulting in the disappearance of JFD.

Just a brief RLL repeat of May 24, 2019.....After the nonexistent morning sex in the shower, MT had a busy day of prearranged activities.

For some "strange" reason, MT knew to hang around FD's office and take an incoming call from Greece around 8:30. (Wrong phone number, but she got it, and she wasn't somewhere else in the house.)

She also knew to see KM in the office, but it's very far away and it's a big house. She even initially said she heard FD in the office, too. Then she went shopping and returning items and visiting friends. She even had visual proof that she was shopping with her snapshot with a robot. And, geewillikers, she didn't ask FD where he was; how his meeting went with KM; if he received a phone call from his Greek buddy. They ate lunch in silence with no discussion of their day thus far and toddled off to Mountain Spring to do a little "spring" cleaning.

Then the dance of the cars began. Who was driving what when, where???

That was followed by a new game called "hide the key," so PG couldn't take the Tacoma home with him.

The dynamic duo capped off the evening with a relaxing drive along Albany Avenue in Hartford. MT never asked FD what in the heck he was doing or what is that big rolled up thing. Nope, no need for her to show any interest in her lover's activities, just chatting on the phone and wiping her hands on the ground. (A very demure way to tidy up in a "nasty neighborhood.") Go figger....

But, all ended well with refreshments at Starbucks, while FD made a few phone calls of his own...to KM...to the children's nanny firming up his plans for the kids. Guess MT missed those phone calls, too.

The sweet world traveler, super executive (who now only understands Spanish) did nothing....if you ask her now.

Time and silence won't cause many of us to forget. The clock is ticking.....

 

[HopeForTheBest]

Really slowing down here...guess that’s good for MT and the defense she has mounted to fight her “battle”. Who is she-Joan of Arc?

I know what you mean but I don’t think it’s that it’s good for MT. I feel like we’re just waiting on the next shoe to drop to move the case forward. I also feel it’s perfectly clear to all who have read even the basics of the case and MT’s history including what she herself has said and done who and what MT is. MOO.

 

[HopeForTheBest]

Perhaps...Some of it is the holiday weekend...Attorney Schoenhorn really wants everyone to disremember that MT and FD were poisonous together resulting in the disappearance of JFD.

Just a brief RLL repeat of May 24, 2019.....After the nonexistent morning sex in the shower, MT had a busy day of prearranged activities.

For some "strange" reason, MT knew to hang around FD's office and take an incoming call from Greece around 8:30. (Wrong phone number, but she got it, and she wasn't somewhere else in the house.)

She also knew to see KM in the office, but it's very far away and it's a big house. She even initially said she heard FD in the office, too. Then she went shopping and returning items and visiting friends. She even had visual proof that she was shopping with her snapshot with a robot. And, geewillikers, she didn't ask FD where he was; how his meeting went with KM; if he received a phone call from his Greek buddy. They ate lunch in silence with no discussion of their day thus far and toddled off to Mountain Spring to do a little "spring" cleaning.

Then the dance of the cars began. Who was driving what when, where???

That was followed by a new game called "hide the key," so PG couldn't take the Tacoma home with him.

The dynamic duo capped off the evening with a relaxing drive along Albany Avenue in Hartford. MT never asked FD what in the heck he was doing or what is that big rolled up thing. Nope, no need for her to show any interest in her lover's activities, just chatting on the phone and wiping her hands on the ground. (A very demure way to tidy up in a "nasty neighborhood.") Go figger....

But, all ended well with refreshments at Starbucks, while FD made a few phone calls of his own...to KM...to the children's nanny firming up his plans for the kids. Guess MT missed those phone calls, too.

The sweet world traveler, super executive (who now only understands Spanish) did nothing....if you ask her now.

Time and silence won't cause many of us to forget. The clock is ticking.....

Tink56, thank you for taking the time to bring these facts forward. We’ve all read so much and it’s good to have these details front and center again. As you said, we are not EVER going to forget about this and neither are LE and the prosecutors. There are times, like now, I think, when we know that progress toward justice for JFD is coming; we wait and we watch, and we have faith in the facts. The fact that MT seems to think this should all just go away because she’s ready to move on even though JFD, a devoted mother of five children was murdered brutally and MT was involved, shows her character and what matters to her: herself. It’s shameful. MT and her attorney are very wrong if they think people are forgetting. We’re not; we’re WAITING. MOO.