Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #58

[Megnut]

Court is live.

Judge puts on the record:

Regarding the comments made first believed to be by a Marshal, overheard by jurors. But it was a juror, directed at Elizabeth Moran, an attorney assisting the State. "We love you." The court conducted an I query, calling the juror to the box. That comment was made to both Atty Moran and also Atty Manning. And his comment could be interpreted as favorable to the State. Even just the appearance. Calls into question the impartiality. Judge dismisses juror.

Next the judge calls the other juror in to the jury box. Determined to his satisfaction that no others heard it.

Judge chose not to record audio or video.

Jury returning.

 

[Southernsnooper]

Megnut, thank you so much for your posts throughout the trial so far. Very helpful in keeping up and on point. You are a gem.

Thank you so much!!!

 

[citygirl]

LA is so poised on the stand. She must be nervous but it doesn't show.

 

[Diddian]

This attorney needs to stop testifying and ask questions.

 

[citygirl]

What is the point of this?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The comment by a juror to a member of the prosecution team? How utterly stupid. One would hope sanctions and fines might be in order? In particular as they were supposedly warned? And now only one alternate? Or is that mistaken?
IMO, most do not understand the significance or importance of neutrality and impartiality in rendering jury duty. For some reason the allowance of cameras into the courtrooms seems to have devalued the process as well? I remember the day when Judge Ito allowed cameras into the OJ Simpson trial. In some ways, things haven’t been the same since. MOO

 

[Megnut]

Cross resumes.

LA on the stand.

Defense is asking about FD's first marriage. Did you learn that FD was still married while he was dating JFd.

State objects. Overruled.

She did not know that.

Defense asks if she told FD why she (LA) was leaving the Fore Group.

Asks about JFd planning to move out with the children.

Asking about tension in the marriage. LA describes later tension between her and FD. 2017. Defense asking about not wanting to drop the children off.

Defense is asking about the next two years, whether LA had much contact with FD. Or knowledge of who lived at 4J.

2019 LA is testifying that JFd lived at Welles with the children. FD had scheduled visitation through court ordered supervisor.

Now we're up to FD at 69 Welles. Asks LA if she saw FD interact with the children, the supervisor or Jennifer that night. No.

Defense asking about the paper towels.

Now asking about FD next scheduled visitation. Saturday.

Now back to the day, Defense is reviewing the events we've already heard on direct.

LA is testifying that when she arrived all the garage doors were closed. She used the keypad to access the garage. Reviewing the LA was surprised that the Range Rover was still there.

LA is testifying going into the house, seeing JFd's purse.

Defense asks if JFd would always take her purse. LA says not always but she didn't leave her purse on the floor.

LA washed the cup of somewhat warm tea. Testifying she replaced the roll of paper towels. Left to pick up the four children.

Asking now about the five of them going to the kitchen through the garage. Not looking for anything, didn't notice anything.

But she did notice that the other door was unlocked. To the backyard.

Now the Defense is asking about the evening, texting with FD.

Defense asks if she learned that FD was not cooperating with LE. Yes, later.

FD showed up at the apartment, demanding, saying the children had been abducted.

Defense asks about FD being competitive with water-skiing. Yes.

Cross concluded.

Next redirect.

 

[Megnut]

The State is asking about FD's travel.

Asks about that group photo, asks if she could have taken that photo. No.

Asks about MT telling her she was moving to Vail. Did she move to Vail? No. Where did she move? Farmington.

How did you become aware that MT moved into 4J?

Jennifer hired a Private Investigator and had pictures.

State is asking if LA ever traveled with JUST FD, just the two of them. No.

State is asking about the day FD showed up at the apartment. He was saying the children had been abducted, demanding the bellman let him in. He did not as they had instructed him not to, as FD did not have custody.

Final question: did the children ever live with FD after that? No.

End of redirect

 

[nodamselindistress]

As to number of jurors, I believe we started with 4 alternates so we now are down to 3 alternates

 

[Megnut]

Defense has no further questions.

LA steps down

 

[Megnut]

Sidebar as we await the State's next witness.

 

[Megnut]

Investigator, Special response team. Did not catch his name.

Called for crimes like burglaries, back robberies, deaths.

Had worked his normal shift 8 to 4. Was the on call investigator so was called out for a missing person.

Was asked to use the license plate reader.

Vehicle was located, got his fear and went to Lapham and requested backup, calling Sgt Romano to assist.

Met with Officer Blenk.

Active search with canine at Waveny.

Then went to Welles because of suspected blood. Met with a Sgt there. Directed into r bay garage, one vehicle in the center bay. Used a lantern spotlight. Could see wiping. Could see bloodlike spots. Describing the Land Rover. Saw additional suspected bloodlike evidence -- partial shoe impressions, a garbage ban lid had suspected blood with a texture to it, and on the vehicle.

Inside the trash can he saw typical household garbage in bags.

Determined it was a crime scene so stepped out to lock it down.

 

[Megnut]

State Police arrived between 1 am and 2:30 am.
Sgt Bissan (or Patton???) offered his services or detectives as needed. He accepted it. More state police arrive.

FD becomes a possible person of interest. Info came from Officer Coughlin.

Command center set up on the second floor of the NC PD. Long list of LE present

Made a call to FD's phone, after others has already talked to him.

Asked him to come to the PD. FD agreed. But did not arrive at the agreed upon time. Investigator had a missed call and an email from an attorney on FD behalf. Jacob xxxxxx (didn't catch his name, Prytranker?).

At 2:40 he and another investigator went to the lobby, met with FD. His attorney was outside, on his cellphone.

Told FD that it was a secure building, needed to make sure has no weapons, etc.

The attorney had FD's phone and indicated that FD would not be meetings with LE.

The other investigator, Allegro, asked FD for his phone. He gave it to him. Gave his passcode.

Investigator is saying cellphones can hold location data, pictures, emails, etc.

Did you have a search warrant for the phone? No.

Were you in the process of getting one? Yes.

Why was the cellphone seized without a warrant? To preserve data.

FD and his attorney left, but stayed just outside the door.

Attorney came back in, asking for the phone back. Was not given to him.

Phone was locked and put into evidence.

 

[LosAngeles]

What is the point of this?

I just caught a tiny bit of the live testimony, but I feel the defense is focusing on the paper towel testimony, so maybe there is a LE vs Lauren inconsistency regarding the paper towels? Hmmm. I wish I could playback testimony. LE found blood on the inside of the paper towel cardboard, but Lauren said she replaced the paper towels? Something like that. Anyhow, we'll find out soon enough.

 

[SkylarSid]

Cathy Russon
@cathyrusson
·
41s

NEW: Alternate juror has been DISMISSED. Apparently the juror spoke to the a member of the prosecution team, "We love you." #MichelleTroconis

dbm

 

[Megnut]

No we are seeing FD's cellphone.

Search warrant sought and granted.

Forensic digital examiner does a download of the phone. Michael Clark was available and had the software to download extractor.

He was able to see some of the data as the download was occurring.

Objection from the defense. Sustained.

State asks the investigator what the data looks like. He says they are grouped and easy to see. Cellubrite.

Location data comes as latitude longitude plus a map.
Observed location data that was interesting.

Defense objection

Court says he can testify to what he saw.

Overruled.

Observed route taken on Albany in Hartford at 7pm.

Defense asks for a rolling objection.

Clarifying for the court how he saw from the data about location data earlier in the day.

Judge asks how the mapping data works so you can determine location over a span of time.

Judge re-asks, how did you determine the location was on Albany.

Investigator says the forensic download will give a time and location.

From this, he reached out to other detectives of the finding (Albany). State has no more questions.

Cross.

JS asks if he's an expert. Wasn't then, is certified now.

Now asking about Waveny. Asking about a canine following a scent into Waveny.

Now asking about a call FD made to LE. Lengthy.

No more questions, no redirect.

Court concludes for today. Jury excused.

 

[citygirl]

Does an innocent person feel the need to hide behind their hair?
MOO.

 

[Megnut]

I just caught a tiny bit of the live testimony, but I feel the defense is focusing on the paper towel testimony, so maybe there is a LE vs Lauren inconsistency regarding the paper towels? Hmmm. I wish I could playback testimony. LE found blood on the inside of the paper towel cardboard, but Lauren said she replaced the paper towels? Something like that. Anyhow, we'll find out soon enough.

That snagged for me too.

Could someone have come back AFTER LA replaced the roll for additional clean up?

I wish we could go back in time (well, for a thousand reasons) to see what all occurred at the holder. On, off, on, off.

Maybe FD inadvertently transfered blood to several rolls as he was breaking into the packaging. So he may have transfered blood in the pantry and she moved it to the kitchen, utterly unaware....

JMO

 

[Cloudydiamond]

I just caught a tiny bit of the live testimony, but I feel the defense is focusing on the paper towel testimony, so maybe there is a LE vs Lauren inconsistency regarding the paper towels? Hmmm. I wish I could playback testimony. LE found blood on the inside of the paper towel cardboard, but Lauren said she replaced the paper towels? Something like that. Anyhow, we'll find out soon enough.

Yes, that's correct. The officer testified that there was a roll of paper towels when they arrived. Not a full roll.

 

[SkylarSid]

I just caught a tiny bit of the live testimony, but I feel the defense is focusing on the paper towel testimony, so maybe there is a LE vs Lauren inconsistency regarding the paper towels? Hmmm. I wish I could playback testimony. LE found blood on the inside of the paper towel cardboard, but Lauren said she replaced the paper towels? Something like that. Anyhow, we'll find out soon enough.

Maybe the blood got on the inside roll of the paper towels in the pantry because someone with bloody hands was grabbing for paper towels. Then, she took the already tainted paper towel roll into the house, never noticing a smudge inside the roll. I probably would not notice either.