Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #57

[Seattle1]

My guess as to what 01/04/2024 court date means....

Announcement and preparations for the upcoming media barrage next week. Gives some time to prepare safety/security camera issues, regarding the jury.

MOO

Exactly -- and checking on the status of jurors... making sure they didn't lose anymore members over the holiday week.

 

[Jmoose]

No, it's the CT system. Take note that during the week of suppression hearings in December, the "next activity/status" continued to read "Jury Trial."

Also, seems "Hearing Type" stopped populating ever since the trial date set. I believe Jan 4 is pre-trial status, making sure they haven't lost any jurors over the holiday week, etc.

Information is accurate as of January 03, 2024 04:50 AM

Search By: Defendant = TROCONIS,First Initial = M

Record Count: 1

Defendant (Last, First) Birth Year Court Next Activity/Status Next Activity/Status Date Hearing Type Docket No. TROCONIS MICHELLE 1974​ Stamford JD Jury Trial 01/04/2024 10:00 AM FST -CR20-0241178-T 1

Pending Criminal/Motor Vehicle - Search By Defendant Name

Does this mean that Michi will have to be present in court, or will she still be out in Colorado, skiing with the only child in this case that really matters (to her)?

 

[Seattle1]

Does this mean that Michi will have to be present in court, or will she still be out in Colorado, skiing with the only child in this case that really matters (to her)?

I'm not seeing that yellow banner with "Remote Hearing" displayed in red font on the docket. I expect she'll be there (or JLS will be making the appearance on her behalf).

What if they announce that the defendant is asking to enter a change of plea, and they accepted a plea agreement?

 

[Jmoose]

I'm not seeing that yellow banner with "Remote Hearing" displayed in red font on the docket. I expect she'll be there (or JLS will be making the appearance on her behalf).

What if they announce that the defendant is asking to enter a change of plea, and they accepted a plea agreement?

Well, she could, I suppose; I had not considered that possibility. The reality of what she is likely facing may be upon her (and her lawyer), and she could possibly agree to plead guilty to whatever is the lowest charge. There is no way, in my opinion, that she will plead guilty to the conspiracy charge, though. Both for the prison sentence, and her social status.

 

[citygirl]

Whatever happens , it's all heating up. Still can't believe it.

 

[Laughing]

NBC CT announced on TV that it would be live-streaming the trial starting Mon. at 9 a.m.

All righty, does this fit into anyone's work schedule?

Please provide commentary....

 

[Diddian]

Well, she could, I suppose; I had not considered that possibility. The reality of what she is likely facing may be upon her (and her lawyer), and she could possibly agree to plead guilty to whatever is the lowest charge. There is no way, in my opinion, that she will plead guilty to the conspiracy charge, though. Both for the prison sentence, and her social status.

I assume she could take an Alford plea (those in CT - is this correct?) with regard to the conspiracy charge and still hope to have friends/family keep alive claims on social media that she assisted without fully understanding what FD was up to (i.e., was duped). Problem: If she does something like that and she knows where JFD's remains are, I can't see her ever disclosing that fact as it would reveal those claims to be a lie.

Whether the prosecution would be open to a plea agreement depending upon an Alford plea would likely depend upon (1) what KM knows, how cooperative he is in sharing that information, and whether the jury would believe him, as well as (2) how confident the prosecution is that they have the evidence that will make the case to these six jurors that MT was fully aware of the crime she was participating in. (I'm confident, but I'm not one of those six...)

 

[Southernsnooper]

I assume she could take an Alford plea (those in CT - is this correct?) with regard to the conspiracy charge and still hope to have friends/family keep alive claims on social media that she assisted without fully understanding what FD was up to (i.e., was duped). Problem: If she does something like that and she knows where JFD's remains are, I can't see her ever disclosing that fact as it would reveal those claims to be a lie.

Whether the prosecution would be open to a plea agreement depending upon an Alford plea would likely depend upon (1) what KM knows, how cooperative he is in sharing that information, and whether the jury would believe him, as well as (2) how confident the prosecution is that they have the evidence that will make the case to these six jurors that MT was fully aware of the crime she was participating in. (I'm confident, but I'm not one of those six...)

I think she must be freaking out over KM testifying! She knows what he knows and what he knows could bury her, in my opinion.

 

[Seattle1]

I assume she could take an Alford plea (those in CT - is this correct?) with regard to the conspiracy charge and still hope to have friends/family keep alive claims on social media that she assisted without fully understanding what FD was up to (i.e., was duped). Problem: If she does something like that and she knows where JFD's remains are, I can't see her ever disclosing that fact as it would reveal those claims to be a lie.

Whether the prosecution would be open to a plea agreement depending upon an Alford plea would likely depend upon (1) what KM knows, how cooperative he is in sharing that information, and whether the jury would believe him, as well as (2) how confident the prosecution is that they have the evidence that will make the case to these six jurors that MT was fully aware of the crime she was participating in. (I'm confident, but I'm not one of those six...)

And this (and KM testifying for the state) is the only reason why I don't think MT knows where JD's body was disposed. Knowing how quickly fD tossed MT aside when she wasn't as eager to flaunt the bail release conditions as he was, I don't think fD would give up his only insurance not to get caught.

I also think the Troconis group et al stand firm in their personal philosophy that because MT did not personally puncture the skin of Jennifer, or pull the trigger on any gun, she is no way, no how, a killer of Jennifer or anybody else. They are flaunting the US law defining felony murder, and are somehow convinced at least one juror will also ignore the law and MT's actual charges.

I'm hoping after watching the police interviews during the time when MT was only charged with tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution, and admitted doing so, that it will be clear to the jurors that MT acted to protect fD, and that she's still protecting him (in bid to protect herself) -- holding up her part of the "conspiracy."

She's disgusting. MOO

 

[Jmoose]

All righty, does this fit into anyone's work schedule?

Please provide commentary....

I have airpods, which I have been known to use at work-I’ll see what I can do…

 

[Jmoose]

And this (and KM testifying for the state) is the only reason why I don't think MT knows where JD's body was disposed. Knowing how quickly fD tossed MT aside when she wasn't as eager to flaunt the bail release conditions as he was, I don't think fD would give up his only insurance not to get caught.

I also think the Troconis group et al stand firm in their personal philosophy that because MT did not personally puncture the skin of Jennifer, or pull the trigger on any gun, she is no way, no how, a killer of Jennifer or anybody else. They are flaunting the US law defining felony murder, and are somehow convinced at least one juror will also ignore the law and MT's actual charges.

I'm hoping after watching the police interviews during the time when MT was only charged with tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution, and admitted doing so, that it will be clear to the jurors that MT acted to protect fD, and that she's still protecting him (in bid to protect herself) -- holding up her part of the "conspiracy."

She's disgusting. MOO

I think you’re right-she doesn’t know what fD did with Jennifer’s remains. I don’t think KM knows either-I don’t think fD would allow someone that the authorities could get to, to have that information. I wouldn’t be surprised if Andreas Tout knows, though.

 

[sassyblue]

I have a vet appt early for a cat that won't want to go and its supposed to be snowing which means DH will have to drive me and angry cat there then back home then to work.

But once at work I can do my job and watch the trial at the same time. I'm the boss although DH thinks he is but he is sadly mistaken. Posting updates may be beyond my ability but will try.

 

[Seattle1]

I think you’re right-she doesn’t know what fD did with Jennifer’s remains. I don’t think KM knows either-I don’t think fD would allow someone that the authorities could get to, to have that information. I wouldn’t be surprised if Andreas Tout knows, though.

I don't think KM knows either but I also think they were working on something with the gun range until this plot was foiled. But I've also long believed that fD believed he could ruin KM and was likely manipulating/blackmailing him. Dudes like KM are often times intimidated (and envious) by the wealth of their clients. I think KM was afraid of Fd.

And I agree-- Greece knows. Jennifer may have ended up there!

 

[Southernsnooper]

I am not certain as I would think KM had dirt on FD as his lawyer that KM could expose, if needed. After FD wasn’t a threat, he didn’t have to worry about FD turning on him. MT couldn’t turn on KM as he knows too much about her involvement.

Also, FD did call KM (right?) during the trash dumping date which makes me wonder since KM was aware of the disposal of Jennifer’s bra, vineyard vines shirt, mop, etc., why not the body?!!! Though I’m not sure he’d say as it could further implicate him?

 

[Diddian]

And this (and KM testifying for the state) is the only reason why I don't think MT knows where JD's body was disposed. Knowing how quickly fD tossed MT aside when she wasn't as eager to flaunt the bail release conditions as he was, I don't think fD would give up his only insurance not to get caught.

I also think the Troconis group et al stand firm in their personal philosophy that because MT did not personally puncture the skin of Jennifer, or pull the trigger on any gun, she is no way, no how, a killer of Jennifer or anybody else. They are flaunting the US law defining felony murder, and are somehow convinced at least one juror will also ignore the law and MT's actual charges.

I'm hoping after watching the police interviews during the time when MT was only charged with tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution, and admitted doing so, that it will be clear to the jurors that MT acted to protect fD, and that she's still protecting him (in bid to protect herself) -- holding up her part of the "conspiracy."

She's disgusting. MOO

I'm not as convinced as you are that she doesn't know. I think she knows, experiences duping delight that she possesses that secret, and that she will never tell.

 

[Seattle1]

Churchwell is covering the hearing on 1/4:

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

WATCH LIVE: CT v Michelle Troconis- Justice for Jennifer Dulos (Hearings & Videos))​

 

[Niner]

Thursday, January 4th:
*Pretrial Hearing (@ 10am ET) – CT – Jennifer Rebecca Farber Dulos (50) (May 24, 2019, New Canaan; still missing) – *Michelle C. Troconis (44/now 49) (Dulos’ GF) arrested & charged (6/1/19) & arraigned (6/3/19) with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence & hindering prosecution. Plead not guilty. $500K bond. Posted bond (on 6/3/19). These charges were dismissed (8/28/20) & recharged below.
*Charged (9/5/19) & arraigned (10/4/19) with tampering with evidence involving the borrowed car from work colleague. Plead not guilty. $100K bond. Posted bond (on 9/5/19). Off GPS 4/6/23.
*Charged (1/7/20) with conspiracy to commit murder. Plead not guilty. $2M bond. Bond reduced (1/8/20) to $1.5M & bonded out (on 1/9/20). Off GPS 4/6/23.
*Charged (8/28/20) with 2nd degree hindering prosecution, tampering with physical evidence & conspiracy to commit tampering with physical evidence. No plea entered yet. $500K bond. Posted bond. Off GPS 4/6/23.
Jury Selection began on 10/4/23 & ended 10/26/23. 6 jurors & 4 alternates. (6 men & 4 women).
Trial set to begin on 1/8/24. (will last about a month, 3/1/24).
Judge Kevin Randolph presiding for trial.
Assistant State’s attorney Sean McGuinness & Michelle Manning & defense attorneys Jon Schoenhorn & Audrey Felson.
Bond info & Court info from 6/3/19 thru 12/6/23 & Jury Selection Day 1-11 (10/4-10/26/23) & thru 12/15/23 reference post #97 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...w-canaan-24-may-2019-arrests-57.698903/page-5
12/18/23 Update: Schoenhorn withdrew his request to suppress her Aug. 13 interview Thursday morning. Witnesses have wrapped up testimony in a suppression hearing. Schoenhorn is arguing statements made in the interviews shouldn’t make it to the full trial set to start Jan. 8. On the basis police lied to Troconis about evidence they had, mislead her on the timeline she had previously given them from the day Jennifer Dulos disappeared, and leveraged Troconis’ daughter & mother against her. The state maintains no harm by investigators was done, saying Troconis understood what investigators needed. Investigators' say their issue was with her changing story during the thick of the investigation. The judge still must watch a third interview investigators conducted with Troconis back in August of 2019 & oral arguments need to be heard before he can make a decision on the motion to suppress the first two interviews. Next hearing on 12/20/23 @ 10am. Judge Randolph also decided that the question of "ineffective counsel" would not come up during the trial. Schoenhorn has argued that Troconis' previous lawyer, Andrew Bowman, erred in allowing her to speak with state police three times. The prosecutor, McGuinness, said it would be hard to make the case that Bowman, an experienced defense lawyer, mishandled the situation, and in any event, the issue was better suited for an appeals court after the criminal trial. The lawyers went through a number of procedural issues & case law before Randolph decided the legal decisions made by Bowman in 2019 would not be part of the criminal trial. The pretrial hearings are set to continue at 10 a.m. Wednesday. The hearing is set to be teleconferenced. Troconis did not attend the hearing in court Monday, but she is likely to attend the virtual session Wednesday, the court was told.
12/20/23 Update: Judge Kevin Randolph has denied motions to suppress Troconis’ police interviews & to suppress DNA evidence. Randolph’s conclusion: “The search warrant for defendants DNA was facially valid & did not lack probable cause. The defendant knowingly, intelligently & voluntarily waived her rights when she spoke to the police on June 2, June 6 & August 13.” “She had the assistance of competent counsel before & during the interviews. Though police used, at times, deceptive tactics her will was not overborne.” See post #113 page 6. Pretrial hearing set on 1/4/23 per court site @ 10am.

 

[waldojabba]

How do they just do that? And why would they

https://x.com/MarissaAlter/status/1742927420293009637?s=20

Marissa Alter
@MarissaAlter
·
12m

NEW: As we are set to start the Michelle Troconis trial Monday, I’m hearing another juror has asked to be off the jury. If that’s granted, we’d be down to three alternates along with six jurors. Six alternates were chosen due to the gap before trial and length of trial.
@News12CT

 

[Jmoose]

https://x.com/MarissaAlter/status/1742927420293009637?s=20

Marissa Alter
@MarissaAlter
·
12m

NEW: As we are set to start the Michelle Troconis trial Monday, I’m hearing another juror has asked to be off the jury. If that’s granted, we’d be down to three alternates along with six jurors. Six alternates were chosen due to the gap before trial and length of trial.
@News12CT

I know jury duty can be really difficult, but I wish people wouldn’t try so hard to be excused. Of course, there are exceptions-like if you or a family member are sick, if you are the sole caretaker for children or elderly people, or if it’s truly a financial hardship. And I wish that the jury system wasn’t made to be so onerous, that nobody wants to serve. I was called down to Lower Manhattan right before Covid, for a terrorism trial, with a death penalty component. I was on the hook for months, and it was really logistically inconvenient for me, but I made no attempt to get off of the trial, although I admit to crying as I left the Federal courthouse on the day I came down there. Some weeks into this time, I got a notice from the City of Yonkers court system, informing me that I was being called to jury duty there, too. In the letter, it said that they provide no parking for prospective jurors, and that you had to find your own on-street parking (of which there is none)-public transportation from where I live, to where the courthouse is, doesn’t exist. Why do they do this to people, on top of all of the other factors that make jury duty so unattractive?

 

[pernickety]

I know jury duty can be really difficult, but I wish people wouldn’t try so hard to be excused. Of course, there are exceptions-like if you or a family member are sick, if you are the sole caretaker for children or elderly people, or if it’s truly a financial hardship. And I wish that the jury system wasn’t made to be so onerous, that nobody wants to serve. I was called down to Lower Manhattan right before Covid, for a terrorism trial, with a death penalty component. I was on the hook for months, and it was really logistically inconvenient for me, but I made no attempt to get off of the trial, although I admit to crying as I left the Federal courthouse on the day I came down there. Some weeks into this time, I got a notice from the City of Yonkers court system, informing me that I was being called to jury duty there, too. In the letter, it said that they provide no parking for prospective jurors, and that you had to find your own on-street parking (of which there is none)-public transportation from where I live, to where the courthouse is, doesn’t exist. Why do they do this to people, on top of all of the other factors that make jury duty so unattractive?

Some time ago my sister was an alternate juror for a murder trial in Los Angeles, and died suddenly at home (her condo in a building). I was called past midnight by an LA cop to inform me (PD was called by a neighbor). Her apartment was sealed by PD. I flew out there from CT with my teen-aged son, and was sorting out things she was handling into separate boxes--(my mother's financial stuff, bills etc, her condo association's finances--she was treasurer), when the phone rang and to my hello a woman's peevish voice scolded, "Well, where are you?" The jury administrator. (I had told the cop she was on a jury and to let them know, but I guess he didn't) I never found out what trial that was, though I didn't have time to research it.