Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 ARRESTS #39

doodles1211 · May 26, 2019

New Canaan Police are looking for a missing woman Saturday, May 25.

Jennifer Dulos, 50, was reported missing around 7:30 p.m. Friday, May 24. A sliver alert has been issued.

New Canaan Police with the assistance of the Connecticut State Police initiated a search and an investigation both of which are ongoing as of 8:45 am. Saturday..

Anyone with information related to Dulos’s whereabouts should contact Sgt. Joseph Farenga at 203-505-1332.

Sillybilly · Jan 25, 2020

Please continue discussion here.

MsJosie · Jan 25, 2020

sillybilly said:
Please continue discussion here.

Thank you sillybilly!

Boxer · Jan 25, 2020

Marking

Topppps · Jan 25, 2020

How much trouble is Mr. Dulos in? How likely is it he gets convicted? what will Norm Pattis' strategy to get him off? How much time are Mr. Dulos and his constituents looking at?

Niner · Jan 25, 2020

Upcoming hearings:

MT - 2/7
KM - 2/20
Fd - 2/28

Catz · Jan 25, 2020

Website question. How does one quote a message once a thread gets closed? Nothing rolled over to this thread this time.
Will be interesting to know more about the FOIA filed to get the 11 page report about the person who Pattis claimed duped Dulos into talking, recorded it, and wanted to sell that info... perhaps it was an “interview” gone bad?

enelram · Jan 25, 2020

Catz said:
Website question. How does one quote a message once a thread gets closed? Nothing rolled over to this thread this time.
Will be interesting to know more about the FOIA filed to get the 11 page report about the person who Pattis claimed duped Dulos into talking, recorded it, and wanted to sell that info... perhaps it was an “interview” gone bad?

my guess, FD thought he would get paid for the
interview and also wanted FULL editorial control over the piece. When one of those stips
didn't happen he called foul. Interviewer may have asked some hard questions
and FD whined not fair.

Megnut · Jan 25, 2020

We can only hope it was an interview that got too heated for FD! It looks like it's illegal to record anyone without consent in CT, but if it was an interview, he consented! Now, I don't know what happens if a person then objects. Does that withdraw consent? Were there any witnesses? Imagine the deadly brawl that could ensue if you are a reporter with a device FD wants his hands on?

I have to believe this is another one of those stories NP is throwing out there but has no intention of raising in open court. Like Whack-a-Mole, only with squirrels.

JMO

pernickety · Jan 25, 2020

enelram said:
my guess, FD thought he would get paid for the
interview and also wanted FULL editorial control over the piece. When one of those stips
didn't happen he called foul. Interviewer may have asked some hard questions
and FD whined not fair.

"Before you decide to secretly record a conversation with your spouse, be aware that Connecticut law may prohibit or at least limit your ability to do so. In brief, Connecticut’s Eavesdropping Laws (C.G. S. § 53a-189) require at least one party’s consent to record an in-person conversation. The consent of all parties is required to record a telephone conversation. Consent must be given by all parties prior to the actual recording and must be either in writing or recorded verbally. Alternatively, a recorded warning may be provided to the parties at the start of the call before recording begins. (For example, “This call may be recorded for quality assurance.”)"
Secretly Record Conversations | Connecticut Eavesdropping Laws

The above is quoted from a CT family law attorney's website, but applies to one individual recording another individual (not just spouses). It appears to me that the law allows a recording to be made in an in-person conversation if one party consents. Hence, the person doing the recording could consent to it. (Telephone conversations are different--both parties have to consent.)

pernickety · Jan 25, 2020

Megnut said:
We can only hope it was an interview that got too heated for FD! It looks like it's illegal to record anyone without consent in CT, but if it was an interview, he consented! Now, I don't know what happens if a person then objects. Does that withdraw consent? Were there any witnesses? Imagine the deadly brawl that could ensue if you are a reporter with a device FD wants his hands on?

I have to believe this is another one of those stories NP is throwing out there but has no intention of raising in open court. Like Whack-a-Mole, only with squirrels.

JMO

See my below reply to Enelram. By the time I got it posted, you posted above. So my understanding of the law is that only one party has to consent to the recording in an in-person conversation.

Chicago54 · Jan 25, 2020

enelram said:
my guess, FD thought he would get paid for the
interview and also wanted FULL editorial control over the piece. When one of those stips
didn't happen he called foul. Interviewer may have asked some hard questions
and FD whined not fair.

Wonder how he thought he was going to get away with an “interview” considering the gag order? Maybe it was for another Greek news outlet. Or maybe it was just a vanity piece. He does love to preen.

Have to admit, love to see more of his clever little manipulations blow up in his face.

enelram · Jan 25, 2020

Remember NP said FD "thought" the person was on his side but then something changed ...
poor FD those boys are just mean and lied to me.

oceancalling · Jan 25, 2020

It is not clear, but is Dulos claiming some law was broken because he was tricked into letting the man into his home or that the man illegally recorded their conversations? If it is the former, I do not see the crime. The man had gained legal entry, so his conduct was not a burglary, and Dulos freely spoke to him. If Dulos' complaint is that the man illegally recorded their private conversations, after gaining authorized entry, that question depends on the laws in CT.

If CT is what is commonly called a two party consent state, consent to record conversations, for non-law enforcement purposes, is legally required. If it is a one party consent state, the man's consent would make this recording permissible. The laws vary from state to state; some jurisdictions make it a crime (usually a 3d degree felony) to record a private conversation without permission if both parties do not consent to recording it. Others allow one party to "consent" to the recording and, therefore, there is no crime in recording the other party without their knowledge or permission.

Not to descend to reality TV, but think about what Kardashian-West did to Taylor Swift, when she recorded Taylor without her knowledge. In some states that recording would have been a crime. In California, because it is a one party consent state, the recording was legal - as morally reprehensible as it may have been. Had West resided in a two party consent state, recording that conversation would have gotten her in big trouble.

Whether or not what the man did is a crime in CT, Dulos allowing people into his (temporary) residence and then talking to a stranger/acquaintance, voluntarily I might add, again shows his arrogance. It is by now clear there was no break-in, no unauthorized entry, and that Dulos is claiming he was somehow tricked into allowing entry. He is out on bond in a first degree murder case and he is inviting unknown parties into his home, for what purpose exactly?

Another stupid move in a sea of stupid moves, and another indication that NP has zero client control. But then, Dulos has always considered himself to be the smartest man in the room. His arrogance knows no bonds. Remember when he and MT went to a party shortly after Jennifer's murder, which allowed a neighbor to witness their stunned reactions to the news about the garbage search? That is Mr. Dulos in a nutshell. In his arrogance, he has sown the seeds of his own destruction.

This whole episode is a big, fat red herring. It has zero to do with this prosecution, and will impact its outcome not at all. Most lawyers would be chewing their client out for being such an idiot in letting the guy in his house in the first place. Not NP; he wants to turn his client's stupidity into victimhood. News flash Mr. Pattis - you and your client are the ones who have run your mouths to the media on the regular. Do not pretend to be surprised and offended when the paps respond in kind. It's what they do. If you have been fooled into believing they have any sympathy for your current predicament, you are dumber and more arrogant than I thought.

There is also some level of tone-deafness in being morally offended by a minor criminal violation, while loudly trashing the reputation of a murdered mother of 5. What's next? Complaining that Mr. Dulos received a paper cut while reading his most recent AW?

Tink56 · Jan 25, 2020

oceancalling said:
It is not clear, but is Dulos claiming some law was broken because he was tricked into letting the man into his home or that the man illegally recorded their conversations? If it is the former, I do not see the crime. The man had gained legal entry, so his conduct was not a burglary, and Dulos freely spoke to him. If Dulos' complaint is that the man illegally recorded their private conversations, after gaining authorized entry, that question depends on the laws in CT.

If CT is what is commonly called a two party consent state, consent to record conversations, for non-law enforcement purposes, is legally required. If it is a one party consent state, the man's consent would make this recording permissible. The laws vary from state to state; some jurisdictions make it a crime (usually a 3d degree felony) to record a private conversation without permission if both parties do not consent to recording it. Others allow one party to "consent" to the recording and, therefore, there is no crime in recording the other party without their knowledge or permission.

Not to descend to reality TV, but think about what Kardashian-West did to Taylor Swift, when she recorded Taylor without her knowledge. In some states that recording would have been a crime. In California, because it is a one party consent state, the recording was legal - as morally reprehensible as it may have been. Had West resided in a two party consent state, recording that conversation would have gotten her in big trouble.

Whether or not what the man did is a crime in CT, Dulos allowing people into his (temporary) residence and then talking to a stranger/acquaintance, voluntarily I might add, again shows his arrogance. It is by now clear there was no break-in, no unauthorized entry, and that Dulos is claiming he was somehow tricked into allowing entry. He is out on bond in a first degree murder case and he is inviting unknown parties into his home, for what purpose exactly?

Another stupid move in a sea of stupid moves, and another indication that NP has zero client control. But then, Dulos has always considered himself to be the smartest man in the room. His arrogance knows no bonds. Remember when he and MT went to a party shortly after Jennifer's murder, which allowed a neighbor to witness their stunned reactions to the news about the garbage search? That is Mr. Dulos in a nutshell. In his arrogance, he has sown the seeds of his own destruction.

This whole episode is a big, fat red herring. It has zero to do with this prosecution, and will impact its outcome not at all. Most lawyers would be chewing their client out for being such an idiot in letting the guy in his house in the first place. Not NP; he wants to turn his client's stupidity into victimhood. News flash Mr. Pattis - you and your client are the ones who have run your mouths to the media on the regular. Do not pretend to be surprised and offended when the paps respond in kind. It's what they do. If you have been fooled into believing they have any sympathy for your current predicament, you are dumber and more arrogant than I thought.

There is also some level of tone-deafness in being morally offended by a minor criminal violation, while loudly trashing the reputation of a murdered mother of 5. What's next? Complaining that Mr. Dulos received a paper cut while reading his most recent AW?

Excellent post and explanation, as always, @oceancalling! IDK the details, but NP gave us some hints in the press conference. He didn't say the police were continuing to investigate. He didn't mention the police were involved. Fd was "punked" IMO.

NP did say "we" know who you are and "we" are watching you. IMO that refers to NP's investigative team not the police. These threats were made by NP with no public or referenced police report. It's another example, as you so eloquently stated, of Fd's victimhood. Somebody played to Fd's vanity, and Fd willingly took the bait. Wonder if he checked with Norm first? IMO...MOO

Here's the article from the Stamford Advocate for those who didn't see it on the other thread.
'I know who you are,' attorney in Jennifer Dulos case warns man he says recorded his client

pernickety · Jan 25, 2020

oceancalling said:
It is not clear, but is Dulos claiming some law was broken because he was tricked into letting the man into his home or that the man illegally recorded their conversations? If it is the former, I do not see the crime. The man had gained legal entry, so his conduct was not a burglary, and Dulos freely spoke to him. If Dulos' complaint is that the man illegally recorded their private conversations, after gaining authorized entry, that question depends on the laws in CT.

If CT is what is commonly called a two party consent state, consent to record conversations, for non-law enforcement purposes, is legally required. If it is a one party consent state, the man's consent would make this recording permissible. The laws vary from state to state; some jurisdictions make it a crime (usually a 3d degree felony) to record a private conversation without permission if both parties do not consent to recording it. Others allow one party to "consent" to the recording and, therefore, there is no crime in recording the other party without their knowledge or permission.

Not to descend to reality TV, but think about what Kardashian-West did to Taylor Swift, when she recorded Taylor without her knowledge. In some states that recording would have been a crime. In California, because it is a one party consent state, the recording was legal - as morally reprehensible as it may have been. Had West resided in a two party consent state, recording that conversation would have gotten her in big trouble.

Whether or not what the man did is a crime in CT, Dulos allowing people into his (temporary) residence and then talking to a stranger/acquaintance, voluntarily I might add, again shows his arrogance. It is by now clear there was no break-in, no unauthorized entry, and that Dulos is claiming he was somehow tricked into allowing entry. He is out on bond in a first degree murder case and he is inviting unknown parties into his home, for what purpose exactly?

Another stupid move in a sea of stupid moves, and another indication that NP has zero client control. But then, Dulos has always considered himself to be the smartest man in the room. His arrogance knows no bonds. Remember when he and MT went to a party shortly after Jennifer's murder, which allowed a neighbor to witness their stunned reactions to the news about the garbage search? That is Mr. Dulos in a nutshell. In his arrogance, he has sown the seeds of his own destruction.

This whole episode is a big, fat red herring. It has zero to do with this prosecution, and will impact its outcome not at all. Most lawyers would be chewing their client out for being such an idiot in letting the guy in his house in the first place. Not NP; he wants to turn his client's stupidity into victimhood. News flash Mr. Pattis - you and your client are the ones who have run your mouths to the media on the regular. Do not pretend to be surprised and offended when the paps respond in kind. It's what they do. If you have been fooled into believing they have any sympathy for your current predicament, you are dumber and more arrogant than I thought.

There is also some level of tone-deafness in being morally offended by a minor criminal violation, while loudly trashing the reputation of a murdered mother of 5. What's next? Complaining that Mr. Dulos received a paper cut while reading his most recent AW?

CT is one-party consent. No crime. See my posts above.

Would be hard for me to think that if anything FD said in the recordings was incriminating to the charges against him, NP would not have referred the matter to LE. Now that the matter has been referred to LE, the 11-pg report and any other records generated would be subject to the CT FOIA--and the public is allowed to see those records. Whereas if the matter had not been referred to LE, we may never have known what FD said in the recording.

pernickety · Jan 25, 2020

Tink56 said:
Excellent post and explanation, as always, @oceancalling! IDK the details, but NP gave us some hints in the press conference. He didn't say the police were continuing to investigate. He didn't mention the police were involved. Fd was "punked" IMO.

NP did say "we" know who you are and "we" are watching you. IMO that refers to NP's investigative team not the police. These threats were made by NP with no public or referenced police report. It's another example, as you so eloquently stated, of Fd's victimhood. Somebody played to Fd's vanity, and Fd willingly took the bait. Wonder if he checked with Norm first? IMO...MOO

Here's the article from the Stamford Advocate for those who didn't see it on the other thread.
'I know who you are,' attorney in Jennifer Dulos case warns man he says recorded his client

The link gives only the first sentence, bc it's for "Insiders" only. Here's a couple more sentences I was able to get:

"STAMFORD — A man who tried to befriend Fotis Dulos is now being investigated after he made audio recordings of their interactions and tried to sell them, attorney Norm Pattis said.

Pattis, representing Fotis Dulos on murder and other charges in connection with the disappearance and death of his estranged wife, Jennifer Dulos, told a judge and later a cadre of reporters outside the courthouse Thursday that the man duped his client.

Farmington police confirmed the incident at Fotis Dulos’ home generated an 11-page report, but they referred Hearst Connecticut Media to state police to obtain the documents. Farmington police declined to comment about the incident or the report."

oceancalling · Jan 25, 2020

So Dulos talked to this man about his case? Is that is what is now being claimed? What a moron! Why is he talking to anyone besides his lawyer(s) about anything except,"Isn't the weather nice today?" My opinion that NP has zero client control, and that Dulos is as dumb as he is arrogant, is reinforced by this latest episode of stupidity.

afitzy · Jan 25, 2020

Catz said:
Website question. How does one quote a message once a thread gets closed? Nothing rolled over to this thread this time.
Will be interesting to know more about the FOIA filed to get the 11 page report about the person who Pattis claimed duped Dulos into talking, recorded it, and wanted to sell that info... perhaps it was an “interview” gone bad?

@Catz, I think you go back to post that you want to QUOTE and highlight it and click the QUOTE button. Then you move to new thread and start a post and then you should have the ability to insert the quote from the other thread.

afitzy · Jan 25, 2020

oceancalling said:
So Dulos talked to this man about his case? Is that is what is now being claimed?

I think that is the question we all have here. We don't know what was recorded so don't know if its related to the case in any way. I do wonder if CSP have listened to the audio and are conferring with Atty Colangelo.

I have to go back to the Atty. P. original comments as I'm baffled how we have gone from a potential home invader to Fd inviting someone into his house and being recorded without his knowledge (i.e, punked) as these are 2 vastly different scenarios IMO.

Atty. P. said I believe that the person that did the recording tried to sell the audio. Did this person attempt to extort Fd or Atty. P. or did they go to the Press?

Originally I had thought this was one big put up to get around the 'gag order' where Atty. P. would claim it was a private conversation where there was no expectation that it would be made public. Now, it seems the situation is something else perhaps or not? IDK, could still be an Atty. P. stunt IMO.

MOO

Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #39

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Long time Websleuther

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A piece of peace is peace enough.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

MOO...IMO

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Former Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 ARRESTS #39