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

[Megnut]

Roll of paper towels in the pantry. With markings on it. Smudges.

Reilly didn't recall seeing those.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Pretty sure kids love horseradish and turnips and would be eating that in the car enough to lose some, GREAT hypothesis JS!

 

[Diddian]

The small "marks" on the forensic rulers used to mark A17 and A18 look like small bits of plant material.

 

[Megnut]

Now we're seeing the photo of the measuring tape with the red stain. And another.

Asking if Reilly recalls seeing those placards. He does not.

Judge asks for clarification. Asks Reilly directly. A distinction I didn't understand. Reilly says he doesn't recall noting it.

 

[Megnut]

Cross concluded.

 

[Diddian]

Judge Randolph has a dry sense of humor. To the jury: "The recess may be a little extended. I hope you're not disappointed."

 

[Megnut]

State has redirect.

Asks about cheeseburgers, radishes, turmeric in various locations. Asking about evidence of children sitting in the cargo area, carseats. No, no and no. Exposed steel in the cargo area, rust? No and no.

Defense, recross. Did you look for rust on the garage floor? no. How about the undercarriage, rust? yes

No more questions.

Afternoon break.

 

[BUF]

Did you notice how MT has both her earbuds in today, and her hair behind her ears for the jury to see as they exit?

 

[waldojabba]

He's insulting.

@City Girl yes agree - he drips of "snark" which I cannot believe is scoring any points. The juxtaposition of the P's respectful and calm professional demanor and his demeanor could not be more evident. He scored no points imo.
Were the paper towels on the holder when Det Reilly found them almost 5 years ago ? Maybe - maybe not. But he found them on the countertop. In the house. As a juror thats all I need to know. JMO

 

[waldojabba]

Now we're seeing the photo of the measuring tape with the red stain. And another.

Asking if Reilly recalls seeing those placards. He does not.

Judge asks for clarification. Asks Reilly directly. A distinction I didn't understand. Reilly says he doesn't recall noting it.

IMO, The judge felt that one answer from Reilly meant the markings were not there and that the other answer meant Reilly could not recall one way or the other whether the markings were there when he was processing. The answer he then gave was it was the second, he could not recall if those markings on the tape were there or not. JMO
edit to add - I am finding this judge actually very sharp and focused - understated for sure but smart and fair JMO

 

[Diddian]

MT clenching of the jaw with mention of Lauren Almeida (the nanny), who the State indicates will be testifying soon.

 

[Jmoose]

@City Girl yes agree - he drips of "snark" which I cannot believe is scoring any points. The juxtaposition of the P's respectful and calm professional demanor and his demeanor could not be more evident. He scored no points imo.
Were the paper towels on the holder when Det Reilly found them almost 5 years ago ? Maybe - maybe not. But he found them on the countertop. In the house. As a juror thats all I need to know. JMO

Yes, I don’t think Schoenhorn understands some of the things that resonate with people. And those jurors can process what this investigator observed and tested, and why he tested those things.

 

[Jmoose]

Interesting cheek twitches on Michi when prosecutor McGuiness talked about the soon-to-be witness testimony of Lauren Almeida.

 

[Diddian]

Interesting cheek twitches on Michi when prosecutor McGuiness talked about the soon-to-be witness testimony of Lauren Almeida.

She looks like she is STILL of same mind as FD with respect to the discord of the divorce, opinion about JFD for fighting back in the divorce rather than simply submitting, and opinion about LA (nanny) for paying attention and noting FD's behavior toward JFD.

 

[Megnut]

Outside the presence of the jury, the judge is taking up

"Prior bad acts"

Is the animus between JFd and FD relevant?

State says yes, especially in light of what the defense isn't likely to concede. That there's blood in the garage, that there was discord, thst JFd is dead, that FD murdered her.

The State says the discord is consistent with their theory of the case.

The next witness is the nanny.

The State is laying out various episodes of antagonistic that the nanny will testify to.

State believes these are probative.

State says it needs to establish that FD murdered JFd to prove the conspiracy charges so they need to bring in the state of the marriage.

 

[afitzy]

Interesting cheek twitches on Michi when prosecutor McGuiness talked about the soon-to-be witness testimony of Lauren Almeida.

Good catch! Michi is correct to be concerned as in many respects Lauren Almeida is JF representative in the courtroom for this trial as the individual that spent years with the family and knew JF well imo.

 

[Jmoose]

Is anyone else bugged by the fact that they can hear the translator, translating, while lawyers are speaking and witnesses are testifying? It’s distracting and irritating.

 

[Megnut]

JS wants to separate two issues.

If FD were on trial, the State would not allow this into testimony.

The Defense wants the documents... here we go.....

 

[Diddian]

Subsequent to JFD's disappearance (and presumed murder), the state of CT passed Jennifer's Law, relating to domestic violence, including coercion as an example of such.

Why would the state of CT pass such a law if DV in the Dulos marriage was not in part a preceding factor which (after the fact) is accepted as leading to the motivation of FD to kill JFD?

Isn't the passage of the law an admission that the Court failed to recognize the DV issues in the Dulos marriage and the need to protect JFD who was subject to them, and that that failure allowed the situation to continue to escalate such that FD was motivated to kill?

 

[Jmoose]

Just a matter of time before Jon brings up the psych report, and reveals what was in it.