Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #61

[citygirl]

You're making me wonder how much that absolutely critical Spanish translator is costing CT taxpayers day after day.

Why isn't the defense paying for that?

 

[waldojabba]

Why isn't the defense paying for that?

Looks like CT taxpayers pick up the tab for the interpreter

Limited English Proficiency FAQs - CT Judicial Branch

 

[Laughing]

Why isn't the defense paying for that?

imho, a basic court cost, like the court reporter generating the transcript.

jmho and all.

 

[Mysticeilis]

George Clooney needs to play fd in the movie version of this heartbreaking story. JUSTICE FOR JENNIFER!

 

[Tink56]

George Clooney needs to play fd in the movie version of this heartbreaking story. JUSTICE FOR JENNIFER!

Oh....I couldn't do that to George. He's a good guy.

 

[SkylarSid]

Check the size scale- the entire object is slightly less than 6/16=3/8 inch. So the size of only a single tooth if that- certainly consistent with an "average" sized human tooth. Note there was also a hair later determined to be a blue fiber clinging to it (blue sweatshirt featured significantly in the case, JS had a blue hoodie in his possession for a long time).

DBM

 

[Diddian]

I've posted a bit about the Social Media disinformation (deliberately repeating information known to be false) undertaken by MT, Troconis Crew and "Esteemed Defence Counsel" and their supporters in the Media including the self proclaimed "Seeker of Truth" Shannon Miller of NBC CT.

I just wanted to put this post out to show a bit of what is going on. The post I wrote the other day likened the "Esteemed Defence Counsel" focus on the weather in Farmington on the eve of the JF murder as simply a game of "Three Card Monte", sleight of hand game to change your focus from where it should be. In this "game" he attempts to get focus on the weather and not on the fact that MT lied to LE 3x about her whereabouts and FDs whereabouts on the eve of the murder of VICTIM JF.

The focus on the weather is irrelevant and "Esteemed Defence Counsel" knows it and he also knows he cannot put MT on the stand as she will most likely simply lie again as she seems unable to speak the truth on any topic and he cannot put MT daughter on the stand or introduce either of their phone records because phone records cannot prove who physically made a call.

So, after a game of "Three Care Monte", "Esteemed Defence Counsel" proceeds to stoop even lower with the presentation to Court of a handwritten list of calls written by MT AND ASKS THE JURY TO BELIEVE that a handwritten unsubstantiated list with no corroborating evidence is to be believed? Yep, its what he did and to me it not only smacks of entitlement and arrogance and insulating to the intelligence of the jurors to spend time even entertaining the idea that the paper provided has any value great than that of TOILET PAPER in this case? He was even too lazy to attempt to obtain official records from the cell phone provider but as I said this data would prove nothing about who made the call.

Anyway, the above event played out in court and was followed by the following Social Media post from MT with yet more pictures of driveways 80MS. It was as if the ridiculousness of the display in court first with the wrong time of weather activity etc. had never happened but by the skeptical faces of the jurors who knew a CON MAN on the STREET CORNER trying to scam them with a good game of "Three Card Monte" never happened either.

i find the approach by "Esteemed Defence Counsel" patronising, insulting but ultimately foolish because the lack of preparation seems to be tainting virtually every aspect of the Defence "testimony cross" see this past week. But, ultimately the presentation is highly cynical as is the lack of knowledge about the mounds of evidence that it is his responsibility to know thoroughly along with very basic technical forensic terminology which was repeatedly butchered over the past two weeks.

Here is the social media post to which I referred to above and see what you think about this entire ridiculous line of rebuttal for MT being unable, unwilling etc. to say either where FD or she were on the eve of the murder of VICTIM, JF.

https://x.com/michelletrocon1/status/1753062257087389929?s=20

Seems as much proof that 77 MS Rd has an automatic sprinkler system as it does that it rained. Meaning: need more information.

But, I cracked up when the Judge said something about morning dew.

I have always believed that someone else was using the phone number/device identified on MT's logs as "Nicole" that day. And the fact that the defense has NEVER identified which device belongs to which person after the State asked them to if they wanted devices returned feeds that suspicion.

MT identified on her "phone calls" log the following activity for that phone number/device, beginning early morning 5/24 through early evening:

"Nicole incoming" 12:59 am (16 seconds) - this is the "alleged" thunderstorm call
"Nicole FaceTime Incoming" 11:53 am (2 minutes)
"Nicole FaceTime Incoming" 2:39 pm (1 minute)
"Nicole Incoming" 8:15 pm (no time identified)

The 11:53 am FaceTime call occurred immediately after a 38 second outgoing call to a number MT identified as "Rugs" and MT included on her log in relation to that call the note "Spoke with Barbara didn't know where were." [Note that "Rugs" bookends the afternoon; MT claims on her activity log that she left at 5:10 pm "Drove to pick up Rugs & drove back too late to pick up, closes at 5:30 spoke with Barbara." But there is no outgoing call around that time to "Rugs" (presumably Barbara's number given the 11:53 am "Rugs" call). The last contact was an incoming call from "Rugs" at 4:26 pm for 1 minute.]. Seems like something fishy going on with this "rugs" stuff.

The 2:39 pm FaceTime call occurred in the timeframe in which the Jeep had traveled away from 80 MS Rd and when LE had executed a search warrant for cell towers at Old Farm Rd, Avon (2:15 to 2:45 pm; this is immediately after FD's 2:13 pm text exchange with PG to see when PG will return to the Farmington area at end of work day) and 193 Birch St, Bristol (2:30 to 2:50 pm). (ETA: This is fairly close to the ESPN headquarters in Bristol. It was ESPN that MT worked for when she was on the SnowTime backcountry ski touring show in Argentina.)

The 8:15 pm FaceTime call occurred 5 minutes after FD and MT arrived back at 4JC from the trip to Albany Ave for evidence dumping followed by a visit to Starbucks.

 

[afitzy]

George Clooney needs to play fd in the movie version of this heartbreaking story. JUSTICE FOR JENNIFER!

I think he might be too tall. He is close to 6’.

 

[jennyjenny]

This image of FT instantly reminded me of similar chilling image of Mark Hacking,
caught on CCTV after he had just murdered his wife, Lori.

Mark Hacking, July 2004

ETA: description

 

[afitzy]

I know that the MT cell phone allegedly cannot be discussed at trial as it was excluded by Judge R.

But was going through some old articles and lists and ran into the story of the FORE IT consultant who allegedly helped MT back up her cell phone to her atty, allegedly to delete pictures of her daughter so she could give it to her atty. This was done before she was charged too! Quite curious imo!

We all thought this was odd at the time and I do wonder if the State might have found this hard drive during the raid of 4Jx?

Article clip is from Sun.

 

[afitzy]

Seems as much proof that 77 MS Rd has an automatic sprinkler system as it does that it rained. Meaning: need more information.

But, I cracked up when the Judge said something about morning dew.

I have always believed that someone else was using the phone number/device identified on MT's logs as "Nicole" that day. And the fact that the defense has NEVER identified which device belongs to which person after the State asked them to if they wanted devices returned feeds that suspicion.

MT identified on her "phone calls" log the following activity for that phone number/device, beginning early morning 5/24 through early evening:

"Nicole incoming" 12:59 am (16 seconds) - this is the "alleged" thunderstorm call
"Nicole FaceTime Incoming" 11:53 am (2 minutes)
"Nicole FaceTime Incoming" 2:39 pm (1 minute)
"Nicole Incoming" 8:15 pm (no time identified)

The 11:53 am FaceTime call occurred immediately after a 38 second outgoing call to a number MT identified as "Rugs" and MT included on her log in relation to that call the note "Spoke with Barbara didn't know where were." [Note that "Rugs" bookends the afternoon; MT claims on her activity log that she left at 5:10 pm "Drove to pick up Rugs & drove back too late to pick up, closes at 5:30 spoke with Barbara." But there is no outgoing call around that time to "Rugs" (presumably Barbara's number given the 11:53 am "Rugs" call). The last contact was an incoming call from "Rugs" at 4:26 pm for 1 minute.]. Seems like something fishy going on with this "rugs" stuff.

The 2:39 pm FaceTime call occurred in the timeframe in which the Jeep had traveled away from 80 MS Rd and when LE had executed a search warrant for cell towers at Old Farm Rd, Avon (2:15 to 2:45 pm; this is immediately after FD's 2:13 pm text exchange with PG to see when PG will return to the Farmington area at end of work day) and 193 Birch St, Bristol (2:30 to 2:50 pm). (ETA: This is fairly close to the ESPN headquarters in Bristol. It was ESPN that MT worked for when she was on the SnowTime backcountry ski touring show in Argentina.)

The 8:15 pm FaceTime call occurred 5 minutes after FD and MT arrived back at 4JC from the trip to Albany Ave for evidence dumping followed by a visit to Starbucks.

SO VERY INTERESTING.

To see the references to "Nicole" and "Rugs" that you cleverly point out and at such strategically important times in the MT timeline too, very much brings to mind the FD and PG angry 'discussions' where PG was told to refer to the Red Tacoma seats I believe as "Hardware" when contacting FD. Odd coincide of using code names for things, isn't it?

Why not call Nicole to the stand to clear it all up or put up the alleged store owners who were being chased by MT. Nope, won't most likely happen imo as these are all just lies about lies that MT is asking the jury to believe because "Esteemed Defence Counsel" believes the jury are idiots imo!

Oh what a tangled web has been woven here by MT, when usually the truth of things is so much simpler imo. I do wonder if the State was able to corroborate ANY of the MT handwritten on TOILET PAPER alleged note about her cell phone activity? My guess is probably not much was able to be corroborated as in MT, the Defendant we sadly have a person that repeatedly lies about lies! Or, the State might not have even bothered given MT history of lying about lies and her lies have wasted countless hours of LE time and CT Taxpayer money imo.

Tough road ahead for MT if the Jury is being asked to believe a ridicous piece of paper presented by a person that lies about lies! Thing is that "Esteemed Defence Counsel" could have provided actual phone records to prove any point attempted to be made but that would be to do some actual work of substance and that simply doesn't appear to be the MO of the Defence Team imo. "Esteem Defence Counsel" seems to not have spent much time with the evidence presented to the Defendant 4 years ago and instead seems to relay on Motions presented to the Court to stop it from being discussed! I guess that is one way to solve the issue of being unprepared to argue a case in Court!

It actually just a farce in living colour that is being presented by "Esteemed Defence Counsel" as someone who claims innocence such as MT should imo have zero issue sharing any aspect of her life or telecommunication or digital devices to prove said innocence. Sadly though this doesn't appear to be the case as her Counsel has spent the past 4 years doing everything in their power (pure abuse of process and total waste of judicial resources imo) via over 70 motions in pretrial to eliminate virtually any aspect of MT from the trial we are all sadly watching regarding the murder of VICTIM, JF. Odd way for a person claiming innocence to behave imo and more in line with someone that has EVERYTHING to hide. But, its not that surprising when looked at in the context of the behaviour of MT since JF was first declared missing. MT never helped in the process but actually hindered and lied repeatedly about her role as a co conspirator in the murder of JF and I believe the jury will see this and rule accordingly. We then see her Counsel working to scrub anything about MT from her trial. Not sure any of this could be considered the way an innocent person would conduct their defence?

We shall see I guess. But, frankly I'm not too optimistic that Defence has any intention of presenting anything of substance to defend MT as my guess is that it most likely doesn't exist. Instead it looks like the screams for 'mistrial' will continue and the 'DAILY DUMP' of Motions In Limine to preclude trial witnesses it seems from saying and doing virtually anything will continue unabated. Odd that MT and her Counsel seem to be demanding a trial where nobody "other than themselves" has the right to speak or make observations or ask questions.

But, the growing stack of the Motions that have been dumped on the Court (known as the DAILY DUMP) and usually with the bush league tactic of not being simultaneously delivered to the State tells a very interesting story of what MT has to be concerned about in this trial imo, and its alot too. Something imo must also be profoundly wrong with the Defence case that observations from witnesses or opinions of experts are to be quashed by any method possible rather than using the available tool of simply objecting. Nah, objecting doesn't work because "Esteemed Defence Counsel" stupidly sometimes does a silly preemptive objection (gotta stop the witness from saying something even if they haven't spoken yet) or gets the objection just wrong and loses the point any way. At this point the situation is technically embarrassing and as he cannot put his client on the stand, "Esteemed Defence Counsel" has resorted to a new contravention of court rules which I have termed the "Testimony Cross" where witnesses don't get asked questions, Nope, witnesses are treated to endless testimony usually with no roadmap and no question ever or rarely on the horizon. I'm blaming Judge R for letting this fiasco continue as its hard on the jury and even harder on the witnesses.

What is so fascinating though is looking at the items which MT and her "Esteemed Defence Counsel" sought to have excluded from the trial and no different from the non alibi scripts where the most damning items were excluded, I don't think there is any mystery about the items Defence sought to have excluded from trial via motion. These excluded items lay a precise road map of breadcrumbs imo as to conspiracy present here between MT and FD and where "Esteemed Defence Counsel" doesn't want jury inquiry or consideration imo.

But honestly the MT handwritten on Toilet Paper alleged note about her cell phone activity is probably about as believable as her LE testimony and frankly isn't worth the paper its printed on. IF "Esteemed Defence Counsel" continues to insult the intelligence of the jury with such a slipshod presentation based on absolutely implausible items then the outcome of this trial seems to be a foregone conclusion.

MOO

 

[Niner]

The alts were not separated from the actual jurors - so eight total - 4 W 4M . I estimate between 35-50 ish maybe 55 ish. It is near impossible to actually glean anything substantial from just a visual .
But - my sense was that they are all taking this very seriously and will follow the testimony , evidence and law to reach a verdict. If I were on trial and just saw them as my jury - I would be fine. If that makes sense.

I am hoping to get back there one more time before all is said and done.
Just my quick opinion

Thank you for the genders! I have corrected my notes!

 

[afitzy]

the issue with vacuuming is that it had nothing to do with evidence that is present. He’s trying to get witness to talk about the absence of evidence with a witness who was there to talk about evidence collected. He was being tricky.

Bingo! You got it!

Remember the tactic “three card Monte” sleight of hand grift that “Esteemed Defence Counsel” used with the weather on the eve of the murder of VICTIM, JF?

Counsel is at his ongoing game of “Three card Monte” here again just with another topic. State imo should have objected and the judge imo should have moved him along as he was so off the line of direct that he was on another planet!

It’s tough sometimes as the topics now are technical but always keep in mind what the original issue was vs where “esteemed defence counsel” seeks to move it! It’s all a grift style of lawyering imo to get the jury and audience to take their eye off the card and so lose their bet! Don’t fall for it!

The brilliant technical lab folks that were witnesses this week knew a grift and a con artist when they experienced it and they knew that winning at “three card Monte” isn’t possible. The only way to hold onto your wallet and not to lose your money in the grifting game is not to play. The technical witness yesterday schooled the Defence on what she thought of the grifting! Kudos to her!

Don’t get sucked into the games! Watch your wallet!!!!

MOO

 

[afitzy]

If the white hard substance turns up to be belonging to JFD ( for example a tooth or any biological part) can that be considered her remains? The family could use that for burial?

Imo strong argument can be made that it would also possibly prove murder!

MT is claiming JF is an “alleged victim” and is still missing. Imo the evidence presents a different story but in her mind JF is not dead.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

I rewatched the Starbucks video, her leg is shaking like crazy. Cold, maybe? Nervous, absolutely! Moo

Yes, clear as day as you point out.

Could have been withdrawal too. Sadly it appears the LE didnt drug test the two perpetrators.

They look stressed and strung out to me…..the mug shot pictures also seemed to allude to drug use as well imo.


MOO

 

[afitzy]

Dbm

 

[kaen]

If you rewatch the Starbucks video, when he puts his hands on the counter, they look bleached! So do hers. Under the comments on YouTube on this video someone said her sneakers match the footprint in the garage. I didn't know there was a footprint.

I think they did a lot of planning to disguise FD as he committed this murder. I remember them asking her about her flat shoes that were not at 4JX and she seemed very surprised. I have often wondered if FD wore MTs shoes at the crime scene to disguise any foot prints that might be found. I don't think he was thinking about blood prints but more so prints outside of her truck on Lapham or in the area around the house. With her flats missing, the question would be why take her shoes. Just a thought. IMHO.

 

[afitzy]

The middle one I see roots of a tooth pretty clearly.

TRIGGER Warning:
In looking at that fragment it also seems quite precisely cut which I thought interesting. What could have happened for it to look the way it does? We will have to wait for ME and Forensic analysis but I do think that fragment is quite odd.

For any of the long time CT residents idk if anyone recalls the infamous and tragic case of Helle Crafts that took place in Newtown, CT. This case from 1986 I believe is also referred to as the “Woodchipper Case” and it also involved a wealthy wife, contentious divorce and the claim of wife gone missing, even though she was the devoted mother of three children. There were also shades of “gone girl” as the husband alleged his wife had gone to go visit family in Denmark and it was only with persistence from loving friends that the police continued the investigation. DV was also present in the marriage as people reported the VICTIM having a bruised face and complaining of how she was treated. The husband was also having an affair at the time the Victim went missing. My recollection was that the case was tried and won by the State using a single tooth from Helle.

The other thing that got me curious about a possible connection was the fact that FD was a horror movie aficionado and I recall the quotes where JF couldn't stand the genre and would leave when FD wanted to watch those kinds of movies. MT apparently doesn't share the JF distain for the horror genre and even talks about watching horror movies with FD in her Law Enforcement interviews. I thought it quite curious that there was a film made about the Woodchipper Murder: Woodchipper Massacre (Video 1988) 4.2 | Comedy, Horror.

Here is a podcast that sees the parallels of the Crafts case to the Dulos case for those interested in understand more:

Helle Crafts: The Wood Chipper Murder - Criminal Discourse Podcast​

Helle Crafts, a wealthy Connecticut woman, disappeared under mysterious circumstances in 1986. Her husband claimed that she had gone to visit her sick mother in Denmark, but investigators uncovered a twisted web of lies, deceit, and betrayal that would lead to the infamous "wood chipper murder"...

Wiki summary of case:

Murder of Helle Crafts - Wikipedia​

en.m.wikipedia.org

Eerie coincidences between the two cases, no?

From wiki:

“Thawing the snow and sifting the soil, detectives found 2,660 hairs, one fingernail, one toe nail, two teeth, one tooth cap and five droplets of blood. From this microscopic evidence, doctors were able to prove that Richard Crafts had disposed of his wife's body with a wood chipper near the river”.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

Remember the tactic “three card Monte” sleight of hand grift that “Esteemed Defence Counsel” used with the weather on the eve of the murder of VICTIM, JF?

Counsel is at his ongoing game of “Three card Monte” here again just with another topic. State imo should have objected and the judge imo should have moved him along as he was so off the line of direct that he was on another planet!

It’s tough sometimes as the topics now are technical but always keep in mind what the original issue was vs where “esteemed defence counsel” seeks to move it! It’s all a grift style of lawyering imo to get the jury and audience to take their eye off the card and so lose their bet! Don’t fall for it!

The brilliant technical lab folks that were witnesses this week knew a grift and a con artist when they experienced it and they knew that winning at “three card Monte” isn’t possible. The only way to hold onto yiur
Money in the grifting game is not to play

Don’t get sucked into the games!

MOO

His whole argument with the analysts -- obnoxious and also absurd. Flight of fantasy. If any of those hairs come back to the defendant....

Here's his argument, best I can map it. The City of Hartford is sloppy in that they allow just anyone to all willy nilly throw garbage into *gasp* city garbage bins where, unlike a laboratory with strict protocols, garbage twists and twirls with other garbage like some kind of Dante's Inferna orgy of trash hell. And since the defendant was sitting in the truck with a man (who she says what FD but her attorney would like us to believe is a different man with a white shirt, no logo) that, when he threw away trash, somehow the concrete mixer of trash spinners, took some epidurial cells (his words) and some of her hairs danced themselves into tied, taped and sealed trash bags and braided themselves into the scrubby side of a scrubber sponge. Because that's how transference works. Not even flyaway hair extensions even, but rooted hairs. Same way, I suppose, her fingerprints landed on the opening of a trash bag. Like they flew through the air and landed there.

It would be laughable if it were the least bit funny. Too, his objections over junk science and his love affair with the Moody case, which the judge already put out of its misery. Now JS is arguing that these analysts didn't do enough presumptive testing. Never mind that presumptive tests are for in the field and the lab uses screening tests and will always defer to the most sensitive, most confirmatory test if the sample is vulnerable to consumption. Hey, JS, if it's already been tested by LE in the field and it's marked for nuclear DNA testing, there's no reason for these analysts to conduct intermediate confirmatory tests! The rest of us understood that 37,000 words ago.

I notice also that JS is no stranger to leading with, isn't it true... despite his objections toward the State of the same.

Mostly I find I object to the defense.

Sustained.

JMO

 

[Baby baby Jane]

I think they did a lot of planning to disguise FD as he committed this murder. I remember them asking her about her flat shoes that were not at 4JX and she seemed very surprised. I have often wondered if FD wore MTs shoes at the crime scene to disguise any foot prints that might be found. I don't think he was thinking about blood prints but more so prints outside of her truck on Lapham or in the area around the house. With her flats missing, the question would be why take her shoes. Just a thought. IMHO.

Or was she surprised that LE knew about her shoes? She had something to hide and chucked her shoes.
FD was unprepared for a bleed out in the garage.