Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #47

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
pernickety said:
Thank you. I see RC refers to discussing it in chambers with the judge and NP, and says "that property is mortgaged for more than it's worth"--though NP said that if FD sold any one of his properties, it would right his financial ship. IMO both NP and FD knew full well that the values of the properties were over-inflated for the bond collateral.
Click to expand...
Yes, imo they all knew and in my mind it makes them part of the fraud. Fd attys worked on that bond package and I can remember atty smith saying that “technical” difficulties were behind the delay in getting the bond issued!

I guess a group fraud action takes time to pull off!!

I hope we see consequences for Atty. P. And atty Smith involvement in the fraudulent bond. But I’m not holding my breath as we haven’t seen atty colengelo fight for consequences on much so far unfortunately!

Moo
 
MsJosie said:
In thinking of all the questions that will be submitted, to DA and all, they will answer only what they want. However, all the questions asked will give them a good idea of what people know and are thinking and even solved many parts of the murder and conspiracy....maybe it will give NP new ideas to throw out there to save his dead client and prove his innocence (not).

moo
Click to expand...
I agree. IMO, In the big scheme of the game being played here, this play, is designed only to gather information for the ‘opponent’.

DA has already shown his absolute bias. There is no question of that. Moo. This Q&A will do nothing except give the PattisPool hard evidence of how the public is thinking. If they had no qualms about printing off FB comments to use to show how poor FD was being tormented, just think what they’ll do with list of questions ‘proving’ that ‘everyone hates’ FD MT and KM and already thinks they are guilty. Talk about having something to argue tainted jury pool.

DA is under no obligation to publish or respond to all, or any, of the questions he receives. IMO this was one of the more well thought out plays, or ploys, really. DA and NP get all the intell they want on this one, and the public will get the same regurgitated reposting hogwash.

IMO, no one should ask this puppet anything.
 
The
pernickety said:
I don't recall where I read the story of the homeless man who found the knife and sold it to Fudge (HC or Hearst?), but I recall report that the hm said it had blood on it and that he wiped it on his pants. I wondered if LE asked him for those pants he was wearing so as to see if blood stains might yield DNA. Also thought it wd be odd to not wipe blood off a knife before disposing of it. Also wondered why a reporter wouldn't ask LE if they got the pants and tested them for DNA.
Click to expand...
The Fudge story came from HC. We never knew if it was a LE leak or Atty. P. Leak to DA.

moo
 
waldojabba said:
I would need to search prior threads but I posted a quote a few threads ago and the article about the CSP looking for reimbursement for costs from New Canaan - one item was reimbursement for the dogs used to search for Jennifer’s phone at Waveny. Also the iPhone in the suburban at Waveny in the red case is never identified as Jennifer’s phone.imo
Click to expand...


Question: can LE ping a phone even after the battery life runs out or if it turned off? TIA
 
sleuth66 said:
This is a good point. It could have been one of the kids phones (although knowing kids and their phones I find this unlikely they’d leave it in the car while they went to school, but they were planning to go to NY in that car later that day). If one of the kids phone, then LE would definitely want a warrant to search that number, because it could potentially give up information about where the Suburban has been. There isn’t a warrant for a phone listed for one of the kids, or a second phone in JD name.

In AW2 they stated that they did a search of JDs phone, which tells us they eventually found her actual phone, not just the records or pings. Given that FDs phone showed him to be in Farmington that morning, in the first week when LE sent the electronics dogs out they might have been looking for a burner phone or 2nd phone of FDs, they do say in the AW they had a 2nd phone of his.
LE knows but we just have to guess for now unfortunately.
MOO
Click to expand...

The children's school Bans All Student cell phones on campus, therefore their phones would have to be left at home or in the vehicle while they are at school.

In AW3, we learn that One of the children went home with a friend that Friday and perhaps, they left their phone in the Suburban to get it from the Nanny during school pickup before going home with the friend.

The Nanny was supposed to drive the Suburban and this would make sense that a child would leave a phone in the Suburban to retrieve it later.

IMO.
 
Alathea said:
I don't know if MT knew about Fd's level of involvement with AC, either - just speculating on that - but maybe she had an inkling (not realizing how serious it was), and figured she needed to protect her standing?

I agree she would not have put up with him being around AC. I see MT as likely quite jealous and possessive.

So jealous and possessive, in fact, she'd want to be completely rid of Fd's ex-wife.
Click to expand...

Here's a thought...when did MT stop showing her hand signals while on camera? I recall thete was speculation about her intentions and what they meant.

Did she stop giving signals after she learned about AC? When did AC move in?
 
CTGrammy said:
The children's school Bans All Student cell phones on campus, therefore their phones would have to be left at home or in the vehicle while they are at school.

In AW3, we learn that One of the children went home with a friend that Friday and perhaps, they left their phone in the Suburban to get it from the Nanny during school pickup before going home with the friend.

The Nanny was supposed to drive the Suburban and this would make sense that a child would leave a phone in the Suburban to retrieve it later.

IMO.
Click to expand...
Found this on prior thread when we looked at school policy on cell phones:


CELL PHONES/MOBILE DEVICES
Generally, mobile devices such as cell phones or iPods should not be brought to school. If it is a family necessity for your child to have a cell phone, it must be turned off and kept in your child’s locker during school hours. Please be sure these items are labeled with the child’s name in case they are misplaced. Students should not use mobile devices to be in touch with parents during the school day. Mobile devices will be confiscated if used during the school day without specific permis- sion. Early Childhood and Lower School students may not bring mobile devices to school or use them on the bus.
 
CTGrammy said:
The children's school Bans All Student cell phones on campus, therefore their phones would have to be left at home or in the vehicle while they are at school.

In AW3, we learn that One of the children went home with a friend that Friday and perhaps, they left their phone in the Suburban to get it from the Nanny during school pickup before going home with the friend.

The Nanny was supposed to drive the Suburban and this would make sense that a child would leave a phone in the Suburban to retrieve it later.

IMO.
Click to expand...
How is this possible the suburban was abandoned at the park. The nanny didn't use the suburban, i'm confusd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 67 more.
Total: 1,439 (members: 68, guests: 1,371)

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
1,371
Total visitors
1,440
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,088
Messages
17,998,824
Members
229,308
Latest member
PRJ
Back
Top