Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #60

[SkylarSid]

If the Tour de France tape was on his handlebars, the part that was frequently touched on FD bike, then there should be DNA.

I am sure he had gloves on.

 

[citygirl]

By 2019, the Tacoma seats had already been replaced with Ford seats. So the seat with JF blood was Originally from a Ford, but were in the Tacoma (hopefully bolted in!).
The Porsche seats would be the 3rd set seats for this Tacoma …

Thanks for clearing that up. I was lost in the weeds. Moo.

 

[citygirl]

If there is ONE thing I've learned watching MT's attorney, it's that NP isn't the most obnoxious attorney in CT.

NP, when he spoke with the judge, as far as I can remember, managed to sound and look respectful of the person and the position overseeing the trial.

PT AKA JS is rude to the judge and the prosecution. In comparison to NP, PT is disorganized, inarticulate, and much less knowledgeable of the law.

All this is IMO, and it's MO that PT should be sanctioned for his antics by the CT bar.

Whew....Needed to say something....PT is turning this trial into a circus. It's so pathetic, IMO, as the death of woman is being discussed and his client's part in that death. This trial, any trial, deserves to preserve the dignity of the victim of the crime. Can you imagine a rape trial in which the defense attorney spends energy and time into defaming the victim...using rumor and suggestion that the victim was somehow responsible for the lies and actions of the client?

Truth be known, I've kinda been missing Norm. At least he was colorful.
MOO.

 

[Megnut]

Thanks for clearing that up. I was lost in the weeds. Moo.

While you were there, did you trip over JS? He's been there all week.

 

[shotgun09]

While you were there, did you trip over JS? He's been there all week.

He looked a little 'rough' today, IMO. Like he's done a faceplant in the weeds almost.

 

[SkylarSid]

I'm with you on your view and I truly think folks here feel the pain on how this trial is being managed and with the early end today spent some time thinking about the sad circus this has become. My sense also is that this sorry trial might be where it is due to the pretrial wrangling of the parties which went on for a very long time and over 70 motions from TP. I think if pretrial had been managed differently or with different players involved that the trial would look quite different from what we are unfortunately seeing. I agree with you that the focus on the victim has been lost to the circus and that I agree with you is a total tragedy.

I really had faith that Judge R would quickly rein in the antics and in some respects he has and that is positive but the antics and ongoing inappropriate testimony is frankly diminishing my hope for justice as its confusing to the jury.

The other thing that is disturbing me and has been an ongoing issue is that because of the ongoing disruptive objections which are very rarely sustained for TP, that the Prosecution seems to be walking on eggshells to avoid conflict or even perception of conflict. I find this disturbing as well.

Few of the TP objections are sustained but to me the more damaging issue is the ongoing testifying done within cross or even voir dire as we saw today (Judge R shut it down but the Jury still heard it). IDK at what point a Judge says 'enough is enough' on these antics because justice is in danger?

What I also am troubled by is the cross testimony by TP which at times is so bad that the witness doesn't even know if there was a question amidst the 5 min sometimes of information. I also question using cross testimony to effectively confirm what I might think would be improper conclusion or a misstatement of fact etc. as this can impact the jury quite significantly too.

I understand why people are treading lightly around the situation as I think we have seen TP raise his hand now 3x for mistrial. IDK why the Judge can't address the situation behind closed doors with a warning and then if the warning is not heeded to do a more drastic 'bombs away'.

The Judge has stepped up his language around the 'corrections' to TP behaviour and this is signalling to the jury that 'all is not well' with what TP happens to be saying at the time. Even so, the TP behaviour is concerning.

I agree with you about Pattis. I guess I spent enough time reading his briefs and looking at some of his cites to be a bit more comfortable with the quality of the underlying work. Nobody is perfect and Pattis sometimes made some wild arguments but it was possible usually to see where he was coming from and the path of his logic.

My sense is that TP is a one trick pony but what bothers me is that he can't seem to articulate clearly his objections or even his points and imo its damaging this trial quite badly.

MOO and SAD

I sure hope the jury sees what he is doing. I am sure he is pissing them off and making them roll their eyes. He is hurting MT more than helping her, but that is my opinion and I am glad he is so blatant with his folly.

 

[citygirl]

I'm with you on your view and I truly think folks here feel the pain on how this trial is being managed and with the early end today spent some time thinking about the sad circus this has become. My sense also is that this sorry trial might be where it is due to the pretrial wrangling of the parties which went on for a very long time and over 70 motions from TP. I think if pretrial had been managed differently or with different players involved that the trial would look quite different from what we are unfortunately seeing. I agree with you that the focus on the victim has been lost to the circus and that I agree with you is a total tragedy.

I really had faith that Judge R would quickly rein in the antics and in some respects he has and that is positive but the antics and ongoing inappropriate testimony is frankly diminishing my hope for justice as its confusing to the jury.

The other thing that is disturbing me and has been an ongoing issue is that because of the ongoing disruptive objections which are very rarely sustained for TP, that the Prosecution seems to be walking on eggshells to avoid conflict or even perception of conflict. I find this disturbing as well.

Few of the TP objections are sustained but to me the more damaging issue is the ongoing testifying done within cross or even voir dire as we saw today (Judge R shut it down but the Jury still heard it). IDK at what point a Judge says 'enough is enough' on these antics because justice is in danger?

What I also am troubled by is the cross testimony by TP which at times is so bad that the witness doesn't even know if there was a question amidst the 5 min sometimes of information. I also question using cross testimony to effectively confirm what I might think would be improper conclusion or a misstatement of fact etc. as this can impact the jury quite significantly too.

I understand why people are treading lightly around the situation as I think we have seen TP raise his hand now 3x for mistrial. IDK why the Judge can't address the situation behind closed doors with a warning and then if the warning is not heeded to do a more drastic 'bombs away'.

The Judge has stepped up his language around the 'corrections' to TP behaviour and this is signalling to the jury that 'all is not well' with what TP happens to be saying at the time. Even so, the TP behaviour is concerning.

I agree with you about Pattis. I guess I spent enough time reading his briefs and looking at some of his cites to be a bit more comfortable with the quality of the underlying work. Nobody is perfect and Pattis sometimes made some wild arguments but it was possible usually to see where he was coming from and the path of his logic.

My sense is that TP is a one trick pony but what bothers me is that he can't seem to articulate clearly his objections or even his points and imo its damaging this trial quite badly.

MOO and SAD

I'm not seeing it that way. The judge has weighed in a few times that the jury is very astute.I trust his assessment. All of your concerns thus appear to me that none of this is lost on the jury. P's appear to me to be prepared and cool and calm. JS tends to jump around like a disorganized blue arsed fly. Especially the last few days. Have faith, my friend. MOO.

 

[Megnut]

Around 5:11, the defendant is scrolling through images on the laptop in front of her. I trust she's not shopping.... is she scrolling through photos that have been entered into evidence? or something else? Inquiring minds want to know.

WATCH LIVE: Missing Mom Murder Trial – CT v. Michelle Troconis – Day 14

Jennifer Farber Dulos vanished on May 24, 2019. Dulos, a mother of five, was in the midst of a divorce and custody battle with her former husband, Fotis Dulo...

www.youtube.com

 

[Laughing]

Late to the Soundtrack party, but please consider including this one:

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[afitzy]

But in the initial interview, didn’t she say she definitely saw him? And took a shower with him? I am not sure anybody cares what she did the previous night, or if it rained. She said he was absolutely there that morning because she showered with him! What are they thinking?!

She changed her story on this as it went from the shower and sex to then not being sure where FD was to then saying she didn’t see FD. Because of lying bout the lying the story moved to her spending night with her daughter due to alleged storm.

Frankly I think the jury writes this all off as the story has changed a number of times due to MT lies and then there was the bumbling presentation by TP on the rain issue and the farcical piece of paper that MT wrote showing her phone calls.

Imo BS meter is ringing off the charts with this entire story from defense. They have no way to prove any of this imo. We will see when they present but so far it makes no sense as it cannot be substantiated imo.

Moo

 

[citygirl]

She changed her story on this as it went from the shower and sex to then not being sure where FD was to then saying she didn’t see FD. Because of lying bout the lying the story moved to her spending night with her daughter due to alleged storm.

Frankly I think the jury writes this all off as the story has changed a number of times due to MT lies and then there was the bumbling presentation by TP on the rain issue and the farcical piece of paper that MT wrote showing her phone calls.

Imo BS meter is ringing off the charts with this entire story from defense. They have no way to prove any of this imo. We will see when they present but so far it makes no sense as it cannot be substantiated imo.

Moo

Hate to keep disagreeing but I don't think the jury would write this off. It took three times before she caved and said she never saw him that morning. Three times! That to me is big. Really big. JMO.

 

[afitzy]

Hate to keep disagreeing but I don't think the jury would write this off. It took three times before she caved and said she never saw him that morning. Three times! That to me is big. Really big. JMO.

Disagree away, we are just trying to figure this out! But, I don't think we are disagreeing exactly. What I am saying is that yes she did eventually say she never saw FD (after lying 2x) but she recast her story to spending overnight with her daughter which cannot be proven. Her lies also imo got more complex by adding the daughter and that to me was the tip off that it was an untrue and unverifiable portion of the lie. She could have just said she slept through the night and FD was next to her when she fell asleep. Nope, they instead concocted something more complex and imo it just didn't hold together.

If she were someone of impeccable integrity then perhaps the jury imo might buy it but she isn't that person. She lies about lies. The daughter call and sleeping upstairs to me is simply a bridge too far in terms of story and seemed like it was hastily put together by TP using the wrong time data to conveniently remove MT from the bedroom.

Nothing really holds together with her story and perhaps more evidence will be put forward to make it easy for jury to figure out where FD was as I simply cannot believe this particular 'story' by MT.

When I kept thinking about this it just seemed that none of it could be proven and that she changed her story just one too many times.

FWIW I'm waiting for more info from State on where FD was as I don't think MT has any credibility on this particular point.

The other issue is that I find it impossible to believe MT didn't know where the person she supposedly sleeps with every night was on the evening before murder. It simply makes zero sense as does most of what we have heard from MT so far. MOO

 

[afitzy]

He looked a little 'rough' today, IMO. Like he's done a faceplant in the weeds almost.

Perhaps he heard that State cracked a deal to bring KM to the stand? Who knows, but he certainly had a terrible day for whatever reason. MOO

 

[afitzy]

Truth be known, I've kinda been missing Norm. At least he was colorful.
MOO.

I actually do and then I think nah it would be a nightmare to have him here for this trial. I would like to watch the trial with him though, that would be interesting. MOO

 

[citygirl]

I don't think we are disagreeing exactly. What I am saying is that yes she did eventually say she never saw FD (after lying 2x) but she recast her story to spending overnight with her daughter which cannot be proven. If she were someone of impeccable integrity the perhaps the jury imo might buy it but she isn't that person. She lies about lies. The daughter call and sleeping upstairs to me is simply a bridge too far in terms of story. Nothing really holds together and perhaps more evidence will be put forward to make it easy for jury to dismiss MT store entirely. When I kept thinking about this it just seemed that none of it could be proven and that she changed her story just one too many times. FWIW I'm waiting for more info from State on where FD was as I don't think MT has any credibility on this particular point. MOO

So your point is she didn't see him at 6:40? Now I get where you are coming from. Has it not been documented that the red truck left MS at 5:20 ish? Yet to be identified as to who was driving it? No worries. It's coming down the road. MOO. So far she is free and clear. Based on what we know it's not gonna last forever. Hang tough. MOO.

 

[nodamselindistress]

JS lot of focus on the oil from Tacoma. Suggesting that lack of oil at locations might mean Tacoma hadn’t been at those locations. We don’t know for how long this car had been leaking … but there’s a good chance this truck did some off-road driving on Memorial Day weekend which could have resulted in damage to oil pan. Just saying… it’s not uncommon hit underside on unexpected rock resulting in oil leak.
Hope we hear from car wash about how dirty it was, and if the seats were still bolted to floor, or if car arrived with no seats. And if had oil leak.

As I recall, the Tacoma still had the Ford seats in it at the time it went to the car wash. FD kept bugging PG to get the Porsche seats and change them out but it took a week or so before he really did it. Hoping I remember that right!

 

[Jmoose]

Perhaps he heard that State cracked a deal to bring KM to the stand? Who knows, but he certainly had a terrible day for whatever reason. MOO

What do you guys mean, that he had a terrible day? I couldn’t follow as closely as I wanted (pesky job!), but I thought today was about like the rest of the other court days-nobody’s winning, nobody’s losing yet.

 

[DeDee]

It's an hour and a half drive from 4 Jefferson Crossing to 69 Welles.
From 4 JC in Farmington to toss trash bags is but a short scoot to the west over to Hartford.

Tracking the Tacoma
5:35am on the 24th the red Tacoma is seen on neighbor's security leaving 80 Mountain Spring, a Fore Group construction site; Fotis shouldn't be driving because it's not a Fore Group vehicle
6:36am Tacoma is seen on cctv driving by the Fairfield Rest Area
7:03am Tacoma is seen on cctv passing the New Canaan Rest Area
7:05am Tacoma was not yet parked on Lapham Rd, according to school bus video
7:40am Tacoma is seen parked on Lapham Rd, according to school bus video
7:57am Tacoma is seen parked again on Lapham Rd, via school bus camera

8:05am Jennifer's Suburban is seen arriving home at 69 Welles after dropping off the children at school
< The murder and clean up occur >
10:25am Jennifer's Suburban is seen leaving 69 Welles



In 2001, the house where JonBenet Ramsey lived address was changed from 755 15th Street to 749 15th Street. I'm not sure when 69 Welles became known of as 71 Welles.

 

[Jmoose]

If someone can explain the TP argument on luminal and presumptive testing please post.

I’m confused as initially I wasn’t sure that TP understood presumptive testing and now it seems like he does yet is still objecting.

What is baffling is that he asks extensive questions about items seized that were sprayed with luminal and yet then says this has no evidentiary value. What is so frustrating is that his commentary is designed to confuse the jury as he is only telling part of the story as it relates to role of confirmatory testing etc. That junk science quip should have been stricken too as it’s wrong on so many levels.

Is the issue he has one of perception of the luminoled evidence in that not all evidence seized received additional testing but could have tested positive in presumptive testing?

I will never forget that one of the very early rumours floating around was that the Welles garage was luminoled and “lit up like a Christmas tree”!

I just don’t see arguing that luminol treated evidence has no value which is what TP is doing and Judge is not stopping this particular nonsense. I know he is trying this case for immediate appeal but this particular argument to me on the surface seems like a nothing burger.

I’m confused…..
Moo

He doesn’t like the results of the testing so he wants the jury to disregard all of the blood evidence. To do that, he has to be critical of the presumptive tests that come before the actual tests for blood. I guess he thinks that if they throw out the presumptive tests, they can throw out the blood evidence, and if they throw out the blood, they can no longer say that she’s dead by murder. And that’s “reasonable doubt”. At least that is what I think he is doing.

 

[Jmoose]

Let me try.

The Moody case.

I think this is the gist:

In the case cited, a stain was tested. Was positive but was not tested further.

And that is why it had no probative value. Could've been blood. Could've been rust. Could've been horseradish on a leaf.

The judge has ruled consistently that Moody doesn't apply. The presumptive tests here informed LE as to their next steps. They couldn't get from observed stain to ultimately negative for blood without presumptive testing.

He allows testimony. And he leaves the Defense their due to cross exam at will.

JMO

Right-because they cannot test every inch of every surface; it makes sense to find out first if it lights up. They certainly aren’t saying that it’s all blood-just determining what is worth testing for blood. He is trying to make the jury think that luminol has zero value. But-they did find actual blood-lots of it.