Silver Alert CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #18

[afitzy]

It's not that common amongst financially strong
builders but obviously the bank did not want to go over *advertiser censored* dollars at risk on that home with
FD as builder.
Banks, IMO, looked at FD w/ a bit of side eye.
Which is why he had to get help financing even
his personal home at 4JC.
People that loan money (banks) for a living and do this day in and out would be able to tell
quickly that FD was a risk taker, had grandiose
ideas, and wasn't good for the whole roll.
So instead of totally turning him down for a loan, they just approve a portion of what he was
asking for.

The civil court case file has letters from various individuals (include the former FORE employee that is now off on his own as a real estate broker) declining to lend money to FORE based on financial issues and 'image issues' associated with JD/FO divorce and its impact on FORE financial stability.

Reading between the lines on these letters, my GUESS is that the local folks knew the FORE business existed solely due to FIL money. When FIL passed away they realized that the situation with access to ready capital/loans had disappeared. FO paid the price IMO of not working over time to develop a track record with local lenders on conventional terms. FO chose the 'easy and cheap' over the 'right and more expensive' but also made it impossible/difficult for FORE to survive over the long term IMO.

I really wonder if FO had plans to continue on with FORE or was it really a vanity project to keep himself occupied for a period of time? Nothing going on with FORE IMO since FIL passed away has led me to believe that FO was concerned with keeping FORE as a going concern.

Wonder what the game is and whether the money he no doubt shipped off to Greece/Argentian allowed him to buy a house/resort/hotel/apt and leave the US for good? My guess is that he wanted his children/or at least 2 oldest sons with him for this departure which is why he is still here.

My sense is that GF atty's are on the right track with figuring this all out and will get there eventually. I'm not sure that will allow for retrieval of the money that FO most likely took from JD over time but it might clear the decks on the FIL funds owed.

MOO

 

[HopeForTheBest]

Sadly I agree. Remember their former teacher who posted several weeks ago, the children idolized their father. Im sure in their minds it could still be inconceivable to them their father killed their mother. MOO.

I don’t remember the teacher saying they idolized their father? MOO.

 

[Rivkah11]

I know this is not a popular opinion here and I also know I've shared it before but until FD is convicted, or at the very least charged with murder, I really can't claim he's guilty. Hell, LE doesn't believe he's guilty enough to charge him. And as long as that's the case, he has every right to try to see them, get medical records, want custody, get them legal representation. Given that there appears to be no evidence that he killed JD or had her killed, he should get custody. Let's say he was a jerk. Say he yelled, was a philanderer, was irresponsible with money. Those aren't reasons to take his kids away from him. The way he probably sees it is that GF and JD were vindictive. GF has lots of money and lots of lawyers and can get her way and he sees this as unfair. And if it were you or me, I think we'd feel the same way. Folks on this site have convicted him or murder based on the trash dump and the personality we see from the media. Sure, it makes me highly suspicious too. But this belief that he's not entitled to due process or to raise his kids is not correct. It doesn't matter how much money, or how little, money he has or how much GF has. If he's guilty, charge him and convict him. If LE can't do that, or if it is going to take a long long time to do that, then let him raise his kids. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I believe it's the correct one. If my wife disappeared, LE could not charge me with her disappearance, and I had a rich mother-in-law that could hire better lawyers than me and was holding the kids against their own will (presumably), I would be upset and I would feel I was treated unfairly. So, until LE charges this guy, give him a break. And if LE knows he did it, then charge him already and I'll go back under my rock.

IMO, the fact he hasn’t been charged doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t exist, or that he wasn’t involved with her disappearance. As I’ve compared these cases before, this is similar to Jason Lynn Young’s murder of his wife Michelle. It took 2 years for Wake County NC to charge Jason Young. In the meantime, Young’s MIL filed a wrongful death lawsuit. Young would not respond or give a deposition due to the criminal case. The MIL’s civil suit won and Young was declared “the slayer”. Based on that, the MIL filed for custody. Again, Young failed to show, and lost custody. Ultimately he was convicted of murder and is serving life. Let’s hope GF files wrongful death suit as well.
MOO

 

[Jmoose]

I know this is not a popular opinion here and I also know I've shared it before but until FD is convicted, or at the very least charged with murder, I really can't claim he's guilty. Hell, LE doesn't believe he's guilty enough to charge him. And as long as that's the case, he has every right to try to see them, get medical records, want custody, get them legal representation. Given that there appears to be no evidence that he killed JD or had her killed, he should get custody. Let's say he was a jerk. Say he yelled, was a philanderer, was irresponsible with money. Those aren't reasons to take his kids away from him. The way he probably sees it is that GF and JD were vindictive. GF has lots of money and lots of lawyers and can get her way and he sees this as unfair. And if it were you or me, I think we'd feel the same way. Folks on this site have convicted him or murder based on the trash dump and the personality we see from the media. Sure, it makes me highly suspicious too. But this belief that he's not entitled to due process or to raise his kids is not correct. It doesn't matter how much money, or how little, money he has or how much GF has. If he's guilty, charge him and convict him. If LE can't do that, or if it is going to take a long long time to do that, then let him raise his kids. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I believe it's the correct one. If my wife disappeared, LE could not charge me with her disappearance, and I had a rich mother-in-law that could hire better lawyers than me and was holding the kids against their own will (presumably), I would be upset and I would feel I was treated unfairly. So, until LE charges this guy, give him a break. And if LE knows he did it, then charge him already and I'll go back under my rock.

Except that he appears to only want the oldest two...why is that? Is it because he knows that those two would have the clearest memory and understanding of what kind of relationship he had with JD? Is there physical abuse that those kids witnessed? I wonder if he is desperate to grill them about what they’ve been told, and what kind of questions they’ve been asked. And maybe even wants to tell them what to say, in case the kids haven’t been asked anything yet, but will. One thing we already do know for sure is that he has urged the two boys to lie for him, so we know he could and would do it again. I get what you are saying re: FD is innocent right now, because this is America and that is the drill here, and thank god for it. He could very well get a chance to have visitation, and maybe even custody if LE can’t charge him. But he literally cannot even afford to make them a sandwich at this point.

I just don’t care about giving HIM a break-I want to give the kids a break. He can do a lot of psychological damage, given what we already know (and don’t just suspect) about him. By the way, you are very brave to hold this line here, and I admire you for it. But I know he is going to prison for something, and I don’t want his kids in his presence when he gets arrested.

 

[Jmoose]

I don’t remember the teacher saying they idolized their father? MOO.

She did say it-it was the school employee who talked about the charts he kept for each kid.

 

[thekirbyfamily]

Agree with you up until when u stated more money for the kids.....would add more money to FD pockets...he would scam his own children..

Yes...more money for kids means more money for him.

 

[thekirbyfamily]

I don't think it's been publicly stated what HF died from, but IIRC it was from a lingering illness over at least a few months to a year that he did not recover from.

It's possible FD may have poisoned HF and JD and his own mother; they all three were "ill" in the time leading up to their deaths. JD had lost a lot of weight and had been seeing several doctors before she disappeared. FD's mother was having "dizzy spells" before she fell and was hit by the Greek nanny with the SUV. HF was ill, with no specifics on what he died from in any MSM or obituaries.

MOO

OMG...right? Just watched a Dateline about the most living husband to his high school sweetheart and he was poisoning her.

 

[afitzy]

If he's guilty, charge him and convict him.

So, until LE charges this guy, give him a break.

Agree with you that if FD is guilty he should be charged with ALL related crimes by the State and Federal Govt. and his case should be heard by a jury of his peers.

I don't think anyone here would/could debate the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It is because of a fundamental belief in this concept that all the Dulos cases (family, criminal and civil) have been watched so closely by many here on WS.

There are a whole range of different POV's on this thread I think as to guilt/innocence of FD and MT and all have been respected IMO. No different than a whole range of different POV's on No Case Norm and his crew of atty's battling on behalf of FO, who I believe in the past that you have expressed support for as is your absolute right here on WS.

I for one don't believe that using public information to investigate or ask questions about 2 individuals accused of serious crimes (tampering/hindering present charges) associated with the disappearance of JD is at all out of bounds here on WS.

I also in no way see FD as a victim of anything in any of the 3 pending cases (civil, family and criminal). FD is well educated, has/had some level of wealth and has been aggressively IMO using the legal system here in the US defend himself.

The court files on FD related matters are voluminous and I'd encourage you in particular to go to Family Court in person if possible to read through the file documents as they might give a different perspective on FD suitability to be a responsible parent to 5 young children. IMO Family Court via nearly 500 motions has spoken on the suitability of FD as a parent so sadly I have to disagee with you about any particular 'parental rights' FD might have at this point. FD is presently asking for information about the children so the Family Court will have to respond or not within the bounds of the law to FD request.

On your second point of "giving FD a break" pending further charges, I don't think anyone here is willing to wait for additional charges as the focus of the discussion has been on the present charges which are tampering/hindering which are quite serious in and of themselves. If further charges are brought then the FD/MT discussion will simply keep on rolling as it always does on WS.

MOO

 

[BluesClues0]

Except that he appears to only want the oldest two...why is that?

They're the only two that are over 13 and so the only two he can request this for. Simple as that.

I just don’t care about giving HIM a break-I want to give the kids a break. He can do a lot of psychological damage, given what we already know (and don’t just suspect) about him.

Divorce is tough on the kids regardless. If he is being wrongfully accused (I know, he's my number 1 suspect too), then denying the kids a relationship with their father will provide lots of damage. Believe me, I want to see the case resolved, I suspect him, and would like to see him charged. But we're now at the stage where it could take years. I don't want to accept the premise that suspicion of a crime is enough to deny you a relationship with your kids.

 

[Myvice]

If I recall correctly, I thought one of the boys had contemplated suicide due to something FD had said or from the pressure FD was putting on him. In my mind, that may be something team FD may want to check on through medical records because it's so dam#ing for him. But I really agree with the idea of needing the records if FD were to run with the kids too.​

 

[thekirbyfamily]

Rochlin citing The Rules of Professional Conduct? That's rich. He may want to continue his read of those rules, where he will perhaps learn about the prohibition against making public statements for the purpose prejudicing the opposing party's right to an unbiased tribunal, as well as the prohibition against the use of "frivolous" discovery requests. In fact, I would suggest that he sign up for some professionalism seminars, as he seems to be very rusty in his complete knowledge of the rules.

The lawyers working for GF are clearly boxing below their class. Weinstein's pleadings are consistently concise, well-researched and well-pled. The use of "zingers" is not overdone, does not demean the proceedings, and cleverly hits the mark. Contrast its most recent pleading with the amateurish PR releases that NP and company attempt to pass off as actual pleadings, and the difference between the lawyers becomes even more obvious.

It is the difference between actual litigators and pretend wannabes, whose measure of success is not whether their client is exonerated, but is instead how much media time the lawyer got that day. It is an open secret in most legal communities to which category a particular lawyer belongs. Good thing FD doesn't know the difference between the two. I am enjoying seeing him be led down the primrose path of Scott Peterson, Teddy Bundy and other malignant narcissists, who truly believed they could fool all the people all the time with their steady steam of horse hockey.

 

[Jmoose]

They're the only two that are over 13 and so the only two he can request this for. Simple as that.



Divorce is tough on the kids regardless. If he is being wrongfully accused (I know, he's my number 1 suspect too), then denying the kids a relationship with their father will provide lots of damage. Believe me, I want to see the case resolved, I suspect him, and would like to see him charged. But we're now at the stage where it could take years. I don't want to accept the premise that suspicion of a crime is enough to deny you a relationship with your kids.

It isn’t as simple as that-if he is technically innocent, and loves all of his children, he should be allowed, by your reasoning, to have custody of all of his children. And why wouldn’t he want all of his beloved children-and why shouldn’t he fight for all of them? I don’t think it’s simple at all! The only reason that the age of the two oldest is significant, is that at their age, the court can consider their preference. He can file for custody of all of the children, as a currently innocent man.

 

[Myvice]

It isn’t as simple as that-if he is technically innocent, and loves all of his children, he should be allowed, by your reasoning, to have custody of all of his children. And why wouldn’t he want all of his beloved children-and why shouldn’t he fight for all of them? I don’t think it’s simple at all!

And they also need each other at this time! How devastating to add more trauma and separation to any of them at this time.

 

[thekirbyfamily]

Double post

 

[thekirbyfamily]

Rochlin citing The Rules of Professional Conduct? That's rich. He may want to continue his read of those rules, where he will perhaps learn about the prohibition against making public statements for the purpose prejudicing the opposing party's right to an unbiased tribunal, as well as the prohibition against the use of "frivolous" discovery requests. In fact, I would suggest that he sign up for some professionalism seminars, as he seems to be very rusty in his complete knowledge of the rules.

The lawyers working for GF are clearly boxing below their class. Weinstein's pleadings are consistently concise, well-researched and well-pled. The use of "zingers" is not overdone, does not demean the proceedings, and cleverly hits the mark. Contrast its most recent pleading with the amateurish PR releases that NP and company attempt to pass off as actual pleadings, and the difference between the lawyers becomes even more obvious.

It is the difference between actual litigators and pretend wannabes, whose measure of success is not whether their client is exonerated, but is instead how much media time the lawyer got that day. It is an open secret in most legal communities to which category a particular lawyer belongs. Good thing FD doesn't know the difference between the two. I am enjoying seeing him be led down the primrose path of Scott Peterson, Teddy Bundy and other malignant narcissists, who truly believed they could fool all the people all the time with their steady steam of horse hockey.

Exactly! Love reading their briefs and your comment describes them perfectly.

 

[BluesClues0]

It isn’t as simple as that-if he is technically innocent, and loves all of his children, he should be allowed, by your reasoning, to have custody of all of his children. And why wouldn’t he want all of his beloved children-and why shouldn’t he fight for all of them? I don’t think it’s simple at all! The only reason that the age of the two oldest is significant, is that at their age, the court can consider their preference. He can file for custody of all of the children, as a currently innocent man.

Sure, and I believe he wants them all. What he had requested is that a lawyer be appointed for the older two so they could make their preference known.

 

[afitzy]

They're the only two that are over 13 and so the only two he can request this for. Simple as that.



Divorce is tough on the kids regardless. If he is being wrongfully accused (I know, he's my number 1 suspect too), then denying the kids a relationship with their father will provide lots of damage. Believe me, I want to see the case resolved, I suspect him, and would like to see him charged. But we're now at the stage where it could take years. I don't want to accept the premise that suspicion of a crime is enough to deny you a relationship with your kids.

The suspicion of the crime issue I believe is only part of the calculus used by Judge Heller to award custody to GF (and not FD). Judge Heller wrote for nearly 10 pages I recall on her decision to award custody to GF. This document is located in another thread but IMO is well worth a read as to the broad range of issues present in this complex situation. The Judge Heller decision also clearly documented that financially FD has decided to NOT support his children so by most definitions is considered a 'dead beat dad'.

We here on WS have only seen a fraction of the file from Family Court but that court had issues with FD on many fronts LONG BEFORE the tampering/hindering charges were filed. Judge Heller has many orders in the file dealing with FD non compliance and lying to the court. IMO FD showed Family Court and his children who he was LONG BEFORE the tampering/hindering charges were ever filed (case started back in 2017).

I don't believe FD is being denied any of his legal rights vis a vis his children because of the criminal charges solely.

@gitana1 in a prior thread gave us a masterclass IMO of what exactly FD had gotten himself to with supervised visitation and the supervised visitation came AFTER he had been effectivey denied access to his children for 10 months or so after he repeatedly disregarded court orders to not have MT/daughter present when the Dulos children were visiting 4Jx and he also proven to have asked the children to lie on his behalf. This lying charge was so severe due to the adverse psychological impact on the children that Judge Heller ordered FD to couseling. Judge Heller has also repeatedly called out FD as a liar in court on a number of occassions.

The Family Court case is complex on many levels but looking at the overall file I would be hard pressed to believe that FD is being denied rights or access to his children solely because of any criminal charges being leveled against him.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

Sure, and I believe he wants them all. What he had requested is that a lawyer be appointed for the older two so they could make their preference known.

He has also appealed the Family Court ruling of custody award for GF and also filed for sole custody (some variant I believe).

 

[HopeForTheBest]

I know this is not a popular opinion here and I also know I've shared it before but until FD is convicted, or at the very least charged with murder, I really can't claim he's guilty. Hell, LE doesn't believe he's guilty enough to charge him. And as long as that's the case, he has every right to try to see them, get medical records, want custody, get them legal representation. Given that there appears to be no evidence that he killed JD or had her killed, he should get custody. Let's say he was a jerk. Say he yelled, was a philanderer, was irresponsible with money. Those aren't reasons to take his kids away from him. The way he probably sees it is that GF and JD were vindictive. GF has lots of money and lots of lawyers and can get her way and he sees this as unfair. And if it were you or me, I think we'd feel the same way. Folks on this site have convicted him or murder based on the trash dump and the personality we see from the media. Sure, it makes me highly suspicious too. But this belief that he's not entitled to due process or to raise his kids is not correct. It doesn't matter how much money, or how little, money he has or how much GF has. If he's guilty, charge him and convict him. If LE can't do that, or if it is going to take a long long time to do that, then let him raise his kids. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I believe it's the correct one. If my wife disappeared, LE could not charge me with her disappearance, and I had a rich mother-in-law that could hire better lawyers than me and was holding the kids against their own will (presumably), I would be upset and I would feel I was treated unfairly. So, until LE charges this guy, give him a break. And if LE knows he did it, then charge him already and I'll go back under my rock.

A logical fallacy again: It does not follow in terms of logic that just because LE hasn’t filed charges, it means that they don’t have the evidence or ability to do so. While there certainly are instances when charges have not been filed in a case because LE does not have the evidence at that time, LE is not required nor would I want them to file charges using less evidence than they know they will have or are likely to have further down the road in the process. I want no one convicted of a crime unfairly and while I personally think there is no chance that will happen with FD given just what we have seen thus far so you bet LE needs to collect and document all the evidence possible. MOO.

Other logical fallacies put forth here include the supposition that the same thing that has happened to FD being arrested, etc. easily could happen to anyone. It perhaps could happen to anyone IF the person did the same things that FD has done such as documented by judges and on camera, etc.

Your argument that FD is being kept from his children because “let’s say” he is a jerk, a philanderer, a person who yelled at his wife, and someone who is irresponsible with money would laughably understate the issues if they were in any way funny. It also is illogical to try to assert that just because FD is and has done such things doesn’t mean he’s a murderer; of course it doesn’t but it also does not mean that he isn’t a murderer as well. The arrest warrants were specific about why he was arrested, as you certainly know.

Further, your thought that FD is a victim because he doesn’t have as much money as GF has ignored the fact that the large amounts of money he has had and spent came from her and her husband—money he isn’t paying back. He has HER money.

I could go on in much more detail but will stop and share a few links about logical fallacies that you and others may find helpful. It’s always good for people to know when logical fallacies are being used, unintentionally or, unfortunately, intentionally.

My opinions, certainly. Thankfully.

Links on Identifying Logical Fallacies:

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

10 Logical Fallacies Master Conversationalists Use to Sabotage Your Arguments

 

[BluesClues0]

The suspicion of the crime issue I believe is only part of the calculus used by Judge Heller to award custody to FD.

We here on WS have only seen a fraction of the file from Family Court but that court had issues with FD on many fronts LONG BEFORE the tampering/hindering charges were filed. Judge Heller has many orders in the file dealing with FD non compliance and lying to the court. IMO FD showed Family Court and his children who he was LONG BEFORE the tampering/hindering charges were ever filed (case started back in 2017).

I don't believe FD is being denied any of his legal rights vis a vis his children because of the criminal charges solely.

@gitana1 in a prior thread gave us a masterclass IMO of what exactly FD had gotten himself to with supervised visitation and the supervised visitation came AFTER he had been effectivey denied access to his children for 10 months or so after he repeatedly disregarded court orders to not have MT/daughter present when the Dulos children were visiting 4Jx and he also proven to have asked the children to lie on his behalf. This lying charge was so severe due to the adverse psychological impact on the children that Judge Heller ordered FD to couseling. Judge Heller has also repeatedly called out FD as a liar in court on a number of occassions.

The Family Court case is complex on many levels but looking at the overall file I would be hard pressed to believe that FD is being denied rights or access to his children solely because of any criminal charges being leveled against him.

MOO

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here. Clearly I don't know what I don't know, but I also believe that GF and JD, with the right lawyers, can get a significant advantage in family court. Family court is not always fair.