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

[BUF]

Are the Hartford cases his case with ex-wife, or the Jennifer Dulos case?

Hartford is KM wife, Stamford is JFD

 

[spaz1959]

Sleuth66, were Ponchos chosen because it seems like a harmless thing to purchase, if they were FD. We know the 3 stooges made a plan. If JD was dismember why not buy a shower curtain liner, also looks harmless if FD bought. Why ponchos if they needed something to cover FD, MT and maybe KM? With his business FD would have access to painter coveralls? The two trash bags put together, if they were used to cover JD body, why not bury her in them if that's what crew did to her body?

 

[citygirl]

Just

You raise a good point. If the nanny was supposed to use the surburban to collect the children from school and take them to NYC, which vehicle did she use? The surburban was at Lapham Road and the Range Rover was in the garage.

Just wondering why this is important in the whole scheme of things?
What does it have to do with Jennifer's disappearance?

 

[pandaknows]

DBM.

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.

Will Administrator Hug's Estate balance sheet be accessible to the public? Not sure how Hartford Probate works. Would the final Estate tax return be included with the Probate file? Is there a deadline for all creditors to file a claim? Hopefully an attorney reading this might know...MOO.

 

[pandaknows]

It seems KM and MT were both heavily involved - and they know it - so it will be very interesting to see who turns on whom, if anyone.

Charges of conspiracy are very serious. To be guilty of conspiracy, you and/or a co-conspirator must commit a specific overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. So for some to say "MT/KM would have been charged with more if they were more involved" makes little sense to me. Conspiracy is seriously involved.

As I wrote earlier, MT had the most to gain from Jennifer being gone. She, IMO, was the biggest part of planning and likely even initiated the idea of a murder. She wanted everything Jennifer had. And, if she knew about AC, all the more reason to try to hold onto Fd - there was all the more urgency.

Fd, while clearly involved in the murder, had the most to lose, and in fact, he lost absolutely everything.

IMO, something convinced Fd that one or more of his co-conspirators would flip, and soon. I think Fd would be able to sit in jail for awhile if he truly believed no one would flip and he would eventually win at trial and get custody of the kids. I think Fd was pretending that spending one more night in a cell would be impossible for him but he had AC waiting for him, with cash, so what made Fd commit suicide? I am not convinced that Fd was simply stir crazy. RC and the judge accepted the bond, knowing that the houses are underwater, so I guess AC is out of immediate danger of arrest for fraud. IMO, Fd was certain one or more of his co-conspirators was JUST ABOUT to flip and he wanted that person to shut up. Does the suicide note shut anyone up? Does Fd's death shut anyone up? MOO.

 

[spaz1959]

DBM.

Will Administrator Hug's Estate balance sheet be accessible to the public? Not sure how Hartford Probate works. Would the final Estate tax return be included with the Probate file? Is there a deadline for all creditors to file a claim? Hopefully an attorney reading this might know...MOO.

I do believe creditors have a year. However, will there be anything left? Ya snooze Ya lose. Hug said he should be ready in a month after inventory.

 

[Dacaesar]

Hartford is KM wife, Stamford is JFD

That's why they thought they could get away with their mutual murder agreement. LE would never, ever put the two cases together as they'd be in different jurisdictions - right? What geniuses. IMO

 

[spaz1959]

Ok, on NPATTIS blog dated Nov 18th, he describes coming up against Ms. HODGE. TITLED I like Fire an Brimstone.Worth a read. Sorry I wasn't able to cut and paste.

Sorry, when ever I find something interesting I get all thumbsy, and excited. Let's see if I can post this better. In looking up KM in court today I saw the prosecuting attorney was Ms. S. Hodges. From there I found a post on Normy P. Blog dated November 18. Apparently NP and Ms. Hodges went toe to toe over a case. It's very interesting what he writes about her. She sounds tough, which thank you God, is unique in CT. MOO

 

[CTGrammy]

Sorry I still don't get it. FD drove JD 2017 suburban with JD body at 10:25 then how can the nanny drive her suburban and how can the kid's cell phone be left there. the land rover was the only car in the garage when she came home

Sorry, I should have spelled it out.

JFd told the Nanny that JFd would drive the Land Rover to NYC for ease in parking. That left the Suburban for the Nanny who just had to drop off the children at the Orthodontist and Not park there since JFd planned to meet the children at that office.

However, We All Know that when the Nanny showed up to 69/71WL that Friday, the Suburban was Gone and later found at Waveny.

Obviously, the Nanny did NOT drive the Suburban that day, but it Was The PLAN that she was Supposed to drive the Suburban in to the city and JFd, the Land Rover.

My Original Post was in regards to the Red Cased Phone found in the Suburban, and that it was more than likely, a Child's phone and Not JFd's.

Some on this thread made note that the Red Cased Phone was probably JFd's Second phone or even her Only phone, and I do Not agree.

I believe that the Red Cased Phone found in the Suburban was a Child's phone, and That child May have left the phone in the Suburban to retrieve later, since the school has a No Phones policy.

There is NO WAY that the child would know, that they would Not have access to the Suburban, when school let out.

But, that does Not Negate the point at hand. Which Is?

The Red Cased Phone, found in the Suburban, was most likely a Child's phone and Not JFd's.

My theory on How the Child's phone was left in the Suburban is that One of the children was going home with a friend, straight from school, and IF That child wanted Their phone after school let out, then That child could retrieve Their cell phone from the Suburban, when the Nanny arrived in the Suburban at School Pickup for the Other 4 children. The One Child Assuming that the Nanny would be driving the Suburban As Planned.

The other 4 children were going home to 69/71WL for lunch Before going in to the city. Therefore, IF these 4 children wanted Their devices, They would be able to retrieve Their own phones from Their home, before heading in to the city.

That was Not the case for the One child going home with a friend.

Obviously, That child did not get Their phone, since the phone was in the Suburban at Waveny.

I bet that it was That Child's Plan, though.

IMO.

 

[Southernsnooper]

@davealtimari
Neither of Mawhinney’s attorneys have left the courthouse yet. They left the courtroom quickly after hearing ended. They must be downstairs where the prisoner transport is located meeting with their client.

Oh, to be a fly on that walL (with a bug!)

moo

 

[Mimi in London]

@spaz1959 this is an interesting question. We saw MT move most of her things out of 4Jx around the same time as AC showed up back in October. At the next Court hearing MT was teary eyed and as she never seemed connected to the seriousness of her charges IMO I do wonder if she was teary eyed about betrayal of Fd with AC as she had effectively been replaced without him missing a beat!

Fd kicking MT to the curb is also fascinating in the context that other than the Atty. P. quote about MT calling her the 'lying lover' we never saw Atty. P. and Fd attack MT in all their "Patis Patter".

I do wonder if the reason Atty. P. and Fd didn't attack MT was because both parties needed the other for them both to not have to spend life in prison. I do wonder if we Fd ever made it to trial would we have have seen Atty. P. turn on MT? I also wonder if MT will now turn on FD with her new atty? My guess is that MT New Atty read the AWs and realizes that its isn't whether MT will go to prison but rather for how long and what further charges will be levelled agains her by the State or Federal Govt?

MOO

From AW1 through AW3 it seemed that, with Fd and MT, each party was trying hard to keep its options open with the other. They were IMO doing quite an intricate dance in how they publicly positioned their current relationship. Loving, yet subtly threatening. Tragically separated by injustice, yet aloof and distant, just in case the other was going down.

Even the unnatural, indirect language NP used in referring to “a lying lover” was deliberately ambiguous IMO, so that team Fd could claim it was a reference either to MT or to someone else. It was said in a context that could have related to the EE. I still believe Fd and MT may have discussed, either before or after they and KM murdered Jennifer, the possibility of claiming the EE had been having an affair with JFd, giving rise to motive. This would mean it was feasible to describe EE as a lying lover.

So, with Fd’s death, where does that leave the other Major Players? Before his death, it seemed that Team Miami was all for trying to salvage the promise of a future for MT with Fd. I don’t even think it was AC moving in that broke that ambition, despite MT’s tears and heartache. The emerging financial picture would have been more of a show-stopper, IMO. But Fd is gone, and surely even MT wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to blame it all on the dead guy with a known history of exerting control over women. I don’t, for a minute, think she was actually a victim of Fd. She’s known to be feisty enough to hold her own. But it’s a handy defense, isn’t it?

Unfortunately for MT, she and her team of Bad Advisors still don’t know the weight of the detail that is going to sink her ship.

IMO MOO

 

[Wicked Strong]

Hate to be pernickety, but the pochos were on the same list as JD clothing, but I take your point they were an output of the crime ( as was the clothing).

I believe the wording that Colangelo used was 'some videos and some DNA' was left out of AW and 'most (information) was used in the AW'.

If you read further down the list, you will find blood like stain on poncho-dna match to Jennifer Dulos. IMO it doesn't matter if they originally were owned by Jennifer or not, just that they were discarded in the same trash bag with other blood like stained items. I doubt if they were JD's they would have ended up being thrown away (unless MT was actually cleaning again).

MOO

 

[Wicked Strong]

sorry, double post

 

[sleuth66]

Sorry, I should have spelled it out.

JFd told the Nanny that JFd would drive the Land Rover to NYC for ease in parking. That left the Suburban for the Nanny who just had to drop off the children at the Orthodontist and Not park there since JFd planned to meet the children at that office.

However, We All Know that when the Nanny showed up to 69/71WL that Friday, the Suburban was Gone and later found at Waveny.

Obviously, the Nanny did NOT drive the Suburban that day, but it Was The PLAN that she was Supposed to drive the Suburban in to the city and JFd, the Land Rover.

My Original Post was in regards to the Red Cased Phone found in the Suburban, and that it was more than likely, a Child's phone and Not JFd's.

Some on this thread made note that the Red Cased Phone was probably JFd's Second phone or even her Only phone, and I do Not agree.

I believe that the Red Cased Phone found in the Suburban was a Child's phone, and That child May have left the phone in the Suburban to retrieve later, since the school has a No Phones policy.

There is NO WAY that the child would know, that they would Not have access to the Suburban, when school let out.

But, that does Not Negate the point at hand. Which Is?

The Red Cased Phone, found in the Suburban, was most likely a Child's phone and Not JFd's.

My theory on How the Child's phone was left in the Suburban is that One of the children was going home with a friend, straight from school, and IF That child wanted Their phone after school let out, then That child could retrieve Their cell phone from the Suburban, when the Nanny arrived in the Suburban at School Pickup for the Other 4 children. The One Child Assuming that the Nanny would be driving the Suburban As Planned.

The other 4 children were going home to 69/71WL for lunch Before going in to the city. Therefore, IF these 4 children wanted Their devices, They would be able to retrieve Their own phones from Their home, before heading in to the city.

That was Not the case for the One child going home with a friend.

Obviously, That child did not get Their phone, since the phone was in the Suburban at Waveny.

I bet that it was That Child's Plan, though.

IMO.

If it was not JDs phone, wouldn’t there be a search warrant for its contents, as that could show where the Suburban had been? Whether it had been driven anywhere else during the 40 minute gap?
In that case in a search warrant it would likely be listed as a second number owned by JD since kids phones are usually in the parents name when they are young, all kids were 13 or younger so likely were on a family plan with JD and all kid numbers in her name. (Could also be FD plan but very unlikely she would allow that). Alternatively the SW would have spelled out that it was a phone belonging to one of the kids.
It just seems like LE would issue warrant for the phone found In The Suburban as it could give up important info about a possible location of the body.
MOO

 

[Tink56]

Sorry, when ever I find something interesting I get all thumbsy, and excited. Let's see if I can post this better. In looking up KM in court today I saw the prosecuting attorney was Ms. S. Hodges. From there I found a post on Normy P. Blog dated November 18. Apparently NP and Ms. Hodges went toe to toe over a case. It's very interesting what he writes about her. She sounds tough, which thank you God, is unique in CT. MOO

Ohhhhhhh....But her conviction was overturned because she was loose with the truth in the closing statement just the same way NP likes to play it. AND, the whole blog loses sight of the case!

NP's client was, according to NP's blog, "... was convicted of sexually abusing a young child. At trial, we won acquittals of the most serious charges, but the jury convicted on two counts, enough to yield a six-year sentence on judgment day."

NP mentions nothing about the child, the child's parents or family, just a discussion of what attorneys can and can't say in court. The convictions were overturned due to Ms. Hodges closing argument. NP is delighted she was such a spitfire...she used the style he likes. OMG....there is no justice in this. The child will be 30 before this over...he/she will be wondering what in the heck justice might be! Criminal court should not be a game...for either side!

 

[Alathea]

Curious, do we know if the Tacoma has a cap on the back? A tarp would seem cumbersome but I’m having trouble envisioning all the clean up stuff riding in the cab.

This leads me to believe that FD may have been a passenger in the Tacoma at some point and the blood stains found were transfer stains from his body/clothing perhaps. That would mean a third party rode with him to NC, drops him somewhere close to WC with the bike, then pulls up at WP to wait for him. “Radio silence” would mean there was probably a contingency plan — if FD and the Suburban aren’t at WP at x-o’clock, check again on the half-hours...or something. Finally they meet, things get swapped, and FD hops into the passenger seat. Only later does he realize he may have transferred blood to the Tacoma and starts trying to mitigate for that.

The poncho business still bothers me, though, since that indicates the anticipation of a messy situation. I presume those were used later, in the disposal process, somehow, and not at 69/71 WL.

As always, this is just conjecture and MOO...

The poncho business still bothers me, though, since that indicates the anticipation of a messy situation. I presume those were used later, in the disposal process, somehow, and not at 69/71 WL.

BBM. Agreed. Since it doesn't appear they planned for so much blood in the garage at WL (paper towels prove that - plus it would not have fit with their GG theory), it makes more sense they planned to use - and perhaps had at-the-ready - the ponchos at 80MS where cleanup and possible preparation for disposal was done. It's quite possible it was very messy.

(It's also possible this happened elsewhere; we don't know, but they did have time @80MS.)

Not sure if MT's sisters business sells ponchos, but they do sell similar gear.

Since MT probably planned a lot of this, it makes sense she'd think of something like the ponchos.

 

[spaz1959]

Ohhhhhhh....But her conviction was overturned because she was loose with the truth in the closing statement just the same way NP likes to play it. AND, the whole blog loses sight of the case!

NP's client was, according to NP's blog, "... was convicted of sexually abusing a young child. At trial, we won acquittals of the most serious charges, but the jury convicted on two counts, enough to yield a six-year sentence on judgment day."

NP mentions nothing about the child, the child's parents or family, just a discussion of what attorneys can and can't say in court. The convictions were overturned due to Ms. Hodges closing argument. NP is delighted she was such a spitfire...she used the style he likes. OMG....there is no justice in this. The child will be 30 before this over...he/she will be wondering what in the heck justice might be! Criminal court should not be a game...for either side!

Absolutely the case was incredibly important. However, I fixated on his opinion of her, he admired her.

 

[spaz1959]

From AW1 through AW3 it seemed that, with Fd and MT, each party was trying hard to keep its options open with the other. They were IMO doing quite an intricate dance in how they publicly positioned their current relationship. Loving, yet subtly threatening. Tragically separated by injustice, yet aloof and distant, just in case the other was going down.

Even the unnatural, indirect language NP used in referring to “a lying lover” was deliberately ambiguous IMO, so that team Fd could claim it was a reference either to MT or to someone else. It was said in a context that could have related to the EE. I still believe Fd and MT may have discussed, either before or after they and KM murdered Jennifer, the possibility of claiming the EE had been having an affair with JFd, giving rise to motive. This would mean it was feasible to describe EE as a lying lover.

So, with Fd’s death, where does that leave the other Major Players? Before his death, it seemed that Team Miami was all for trying to salvage the promise of a future for MT with Fd. I don’t even think it was AC moving in that broke that ambition, despite MT’s tears and heartache. The emerging financial picture would have been more of a show-stopper, IMO. But Fd is gone, and surely even MT wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to blame it all on the dead guy with a known history of exerting control over women. I don’t, for a minute, think she was actually a victim of Fd. She’s known to be feisty enough to hold her own. But it’s a handy defense, isn’t it?

Unfortunately for MT, she and her team of Bad Advisors still don’t know the weight of the detail that is going to sink her ship.

IMO MOO

Well said!

 

[pandaknows]

If it was not JDs phone, wouldn’t there be a search warrant for its contents, as that could show where the Suburban had been? Whether it had been driven anywhere else during the 40 minute gap?
In that case in a search warrant it would likely be listed as a second number owned by JD since kids phones are usually in the parents name when they are young, all kids were 13 or younger so likely were on a family plan with JD and all kid numbers in her name. (Could also be FD plan but very unlikely she would allow that). Alternatively the SW would have spelled out that it was a phone belonging to one of the kids.
It just seems like LE would issue warrant for the phone found In The Suburban as it could give up important info about a possible location of the body.
MOO

Why would the driver of the Suburban, and presumably the same person who turned JFd cellphone off at 11:09 AM, leave the child's cellphone in the red case in the Suburban for LE to find the handset but not leave JFd's handset in the Suburban too? Possibly still trying to mimic JFd going for a jog? Would JFd's cellphone be immediately identifiable as hers and the child's cellphone, in a possibly blinged up red case, be obvi the child's? I know that @sleuth66 has a different question than mine but I thought the presence of a cellphone handset, never mind to whom it belongs, a little odd and deliberate. GPS tracking by...? MOO, LE already knows why the red case handset was left and has tracked it without disclosing it. Because it would jeopardize an aspect of the investigation. moo.

 

[CTGrammy]

If it was not JDs phone, wouldn’t there be a search warrant for its contents, as that could show where the Suburban had been? Whether it had been driven anywhere else during the 40 minute gap?
In that case in a search warrant it would likely be listed as a second number owned by JD since kids phones are usually in the parents name when they are young, all kids were 13 or younger so likely were on a family plan with JD and all kid numbers in her name. (Could also be FD plan but very unlikely she would allow that). Alternatively the SW would have spelled out that it was a phone belonging to one of the kids.
It just seems like LE would issue warrant for the phone found In The Suburban as it could give up important info about a possible location of the body.
MOO

I expect they have and we just do not know about it yet. Not all search warrants have been released yet.

I am unable to look right now, but were the search warrants of all the devices found at 69/71WL released or just the fact that the devices were found and taken in to evidence?

IMO.