Deceased/Not Found CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #38

[Catz]

In the SW (Page 87, Item 13) "....perpetrators took part in a "clean-up" of the crime scene...."

Perpetrators. Plural.

From what I could find searching the SWs, they used “perpetrators took part in a clean up” when they were requesting cell phone tower dump records that included more than one property and including 80 MS.

Boxer, you already posted while I was typing.sorry!

 

[BUF]

If FD showed up at the police station with a criminal defense atty, don’t you think it would show him to be a bit guilty? He probably went with that other atty hoping to get some guidance from him.

lt didn’t help though.

 

[SkylarSid]

RSBM: Can you direct me to a source about help with clean up because I've missed that. Thanks!

Not sure if someone has answered this for you. Page 119, #13 of the search warrant has a statement that, " it is highly likely that multiple individuals were involveD in the crime and ensuing clean up"...

 

[afitzy]

If FD showed up at the police station with a criminal defense atty, don’t you think it would show him to be a bit guilty? He probably went with that other atty hoping to get some guidance from him.

lt didn’t help though.

In NC it's not unusual for people to go to PD with atty's, just the way folks roll. Not all clearly, just many IMO. MOO

 

[CTGrammy]

Not impossible in my eyes. Did he have a toolbox on his truck bed? Could have been in there since FD wouldn't want the wind on the highway to get ahold of the bucket or his hoodie. And then forgot about them when the key confusion happened.

So both items sit in the toolbox until EE noticed them in there on 5/28 when he arrived at work and needed to grab some tools out of the toolbox...

Ahh. The tool box is very interesting. That could be why EE did not see the bucket. Depending on the size of the tool box, of course. Do we know if EE's red truck has a large tool box in the bed that would hold a 2 to 3.5 gallon bucket?

IMO.

 

[BellaVita]

Not sure if someone has answered this for you. Page 119, #13 of the search warrant has a statement that, " it is highly likely that multiple individuals were involveD in the crime and ensuing clean up"...

There are multiple warrants using same language. The particular warrant I looked at was dated 6/5 after arrests had already occurred. It is now MOO that the "multiple" reference refers to MS and Albany Ave. MOO.
ETA: SW language seems to have alot of standard language. LE already knew, especially since 2 arrests had been made, that multiple people were involved. I believe that is what put that language in there.

 

[LittleBitty]

‘I Wasn’t Cleaning Jennifer’: Macabre Details Abound in Michelle Troconis Arrest Warrant

That article above had one tid bit that I don't remember seeing (reading through SW/AWs): That a "forensic download" of FD's cell phone placed an alarm signal at 4:20am on May 24th which was shut off a minute later.
We know that the EE's Red Toyota Tacoma left the property of 80 Mountain Spring Road (which is later referred to in the SWs as a secondary crime scene) at 5:35am in the direction of New Canaan. Next mention of the Tacoma is 6:36am on 5/24 seen on camera at the Fairfield rest area. Then of course the very truthful and not at homely paramour awakes to turn off her alarm at 6:40 am.

Everything I needed to know about MT occurred in one interview exchange which we have all discussed and which was revealed in AW3.

At one point LE tells MT that FD killed his wife and had involved MT in the cleanup process.
She replied, "That's like even worse. I hate him because of that."
LE officer pressed further and said, "He got you in trouble."
She replied, "But I was cleaning the house. I wasn't cleaning Jennifer."

<modsnip>

 

[SkylarSid]

RSBM: Can you direct me to a source about help with clean up because I've missed that. Thanks!

Not sure if someone has answered this for you. Page 119, #13 of the search warrant has a statement that, " it is highly likely that multiple individuals were involveD in the crime and ensuing clean up"...

My human impulse would be to never go near Albany Ave at all day or night.... But not these 2... I understand why MT referred to it as a"creepy area", cuz it IS creepy and scary. There is a very good reason that that area has so many high quality crime watch cameras!!!

I have been lost in this area before.... Scary AF... Then I got pulled over by Hartford PD.... not because I did anything wrong.... The officer came up to my window and explained to me that he is going to escort us to our destination in Hartford

(it was one of the hospitals... One of our friends was in a horrible car accident and lifestarred to the hospital that day and we were going to the hospital to say our goodbyes possibly)

When my dumb naive 22 yr old self asked "why, officer?" He shined his flash light at me and then pointed to my best friend in the passenger seat and looked back and forth between the 2 of us and replied "you 2 DO NOT belong here!!! So i am going to escort you to your destination. Then he explained for our safety where in Hartford we should NEVER be.

Wow, does sound really creepy. I guess MT would let FD taker her anywhere... JMO

 

[BellaVita]

Ahh. The tool box is very interesting. That could be why EE did not see the bucket. Depending on the size of the tool box, of course. Do we know if EE's red truck has a large tool box in the bed that would hold a 2 to 3.5 gallon bucket?

IMO.

The AW says:

Some trucks have a large toolbox that is actually part of the truck, so to speak that would fit a bucket. The language in the AW implies that this toolbox was a smaller, handheld one. MOO.

 

[Tink56]

It really maddening that the State really can't rely on MT for anything. I don't have to like NP but any good attorney worth a paperclip would attack her credibility repeatedly and with good reason. I wouldn't want to put her on the stand unless I kept the scope LIMITED to things that could be backed up with other evidence/testimony. Then NP would have to stick to the scope of the questioning. And even then I wouldn't put MT on the stand unless it was absolutely necessary PLUS with loads of info to back up her testimony.

Great post @LittleBitty...love the line BBM.."any good attorney worth a paperclip."

Totally agree. NP could have a field day with MT. Hopefully that evidence and other testimony is in the evidence bag.

However, with MT's word salad, maybe she could confuse NP...or, MAYBE if she helps find Jennifer, LE might make a deal.

 

[BellaVita]

If FD showed up at the police station with a criminal defense atty, don’t you think it would show him to be a bit guilty? He probably went with that other atty hoping to get some guidance from him.

lt didn’t help though.

Even if innocent, it is smart to get an attorney. EE got an atty and he is 100% innocent. That being said, even a civil atty should know not to bring your cell phone to the police station. I have no law education and even I know that. Being a civil atty is no excuse. All you have to do is watch Dateline!

 

[MollyDDD]

adding
Press Conference

That’ll work too.

 

[afitzy]

I am working to catalog some of the Atty. P. statements and in the process found this whopper:

The Jennifer Dulos Case So Far: Prosecutors Take On Fotis Dulos's Alibi In Arrest Warrant

Quotes from article:

After Dulos was first arrested in June 2019 on evidence tampering charges, Pattis rebutted speculation about his client’s involvement in Jennifer’s May 24 disappearance, saying “the alibi is enormous.”[BBM]

“We believe we can demonstrate with credible evidence that Mr. Dulos was in his home in Farmington ’til just about 9 a.m., at least 9,” on the day Jennifer went missing, Pattis said in June. “Thereafter, we still think he was in his home.”

Pattis indicated phone records would back up that claim. Even better for the defense, there were witnesses: Dulos’s then-girlfriend Michelle Troconis, and an attorney named Kent Mawhinney. [BBM]

Missing Connecticut mother Jennifer Dulos’ estranged husband Fotis Dulos and girlfriend, Michelle Troconis. (credit: Connecticut State Police)

“(Troconis) was with him at the time Jennifer went missing,” Pattis told Hearst Connecticut Media in June.

“We know where he was. Michelle knows where he was,” he said.

“Michelle provides Fotis a complete alibi for the morning of Ms. Dulos’s disappearance,” Pattis claimed.

Seven months later, that claim may no longer hold. [BBM]





MOO

 

[oceancalling]

Just basing it off paragraph 39 of the murder arrest warrant. They use this language "non-survivable without medical treatment" that's not very definitive. Also there has been only 2 other murders in Connecticut history that have obtained convictions without a body, one of them the guy confessed the other was infamous Woodchipper murder, they proved from bone fragments that has passed throught the chipper that her skull broke open in an outwardly manner and she was dead, which is much more convincing than this paragraph 39 imo. Here's how they proved it (timestamped):

The state had one doctor's opinion she's dead, Norm Pattis will have a few say she could have survived.

Look outside the small state of CT and you will find nearly 600 murder prosecutions in this country, with an 86% conviction rate - far, far higher than the average in murder prosecutions. The theory for this high success rate is that only the best cases get prosecuted. This is one of those cases.

Back in the day, state prosecutors were perhaps more reluctant to vigorously pursue such cases, but our technology has come a very, very long way in the last 20 years. Bad guys who used to get away with murder are being prosecuted and innocent people are being freed by current forensic evidence. Forensics evidence is going to convict Mr. Dulos.

 

[afitzy]

Great post @LittleBitty...love the line BBM.."any good attorney worth a paperclip."

Totally agree. NP could have a field day with MT. Hopefully that evidence and other testimony is in the evidence bag.

However, with MT's word salad, maybe she could confuse NP...or, MAYBE if she helps find Jennifer, LE might make a deal.

I actually think MT should be redeployed as an interrogator at Guantanamo!

2 mins with her IMO and anyone there would flip or beg to be returned to their country of origin.

MOO

 

[sleuth66]

There are multiple warrants using same language. The particular warrant I looked at was dated 6/5 after arrests had already occurred. It is now MOO that the "multiple" reference refers to MS and Albany Ave. MOO.

I think one thing that we need to keep in mind here, is that the Search Warrants and the Arrest Warrants should be interpreted differently.

For example, the search warrant for 80 MS says they have “probable cause to believe” that 80MS is a “secondary crime scene”. Yes, based on the footage of the Red Tacoma going directly there and all the time FD spent there that afternoon, it would give reason for LE to think that 80MS could be a secondary crime scene, enough evidence for a judge to grant permission for LE to go in and search it and see if that is indeed the case.
BUT, does LE still believe that 80MS was a secondary crime scene after the search? We just don’t know. We do know that the search warrant states “nothing seized” which makes me wonder.
So we can’t be sure if LE currently still considers 80MS to be a “secondary crime scene” or not. Thus the need to take the SW statements with a grain of salt. Many do hold up as this isn’t a “fishing expedition” by any means (and search warrants wouldn’t be granted under such circumstances anyway). So lots probably still does hold true.

So when we look at language in the search warrants, we need to consider that LE view might have changed, after the search was done. The language in the warrants is just to get permission to do the search and seizure. It doesn’t mean that what they find bears that hunch out.

The arrest warrant is much more definitive. They are not going to put things in the arrest warrant that are not seriously substantiated. So statements like that LE believes that FD was driving JDs Suburban away from Welles Lane at 10:25 and that JDs body was in the vehicle, are much more trustworthy. We may not know all the pieces that LE has in coming to that conclusion, but we can be sure that it’s held to a higher standard than the statements in the SWs, which just have to give probable cause to allow a search and seizure, rather than an arrest.

Also with the search warrants, many were issued very very early on, and more information became available, and LE thinking changed, during the course of the investigation. So keeping in mind that what they said back then may have shifted or become more complex in the time since.

 

[enelram]

Earlier I mentioned I believed hiding the body
happened at least in 2 places in that they put it
somewhere on 5/24 when FD returned to Farmington.
Well on 5/24 someone's phone pinged in an
area near 190 Old Farms Rd., Avon at 2:15pm
and stayed there for appx. 1/2 hr. til 2:45pm.
Well, well. 190 Old Farms Rd, Avon happens
to be the location of Avon Self Storage which
somewhere in the past we determined FD had
a unit there.

So did he place the body there temporarily?
Or hide the bike there temporarily?
Something was taken there on date of murder.

After leaving the storage facility a phone pinged in area of 193 Birch St., Bristol which
just happens to be up the road from ESPN
headquarters where MT once worked. ESPN is 700 Birch St. Nearby
is a 55 ac. city park with a nice isolated fishing lake. Very remote, wooded land and few buildings closeby. The phone stayed in the area for 1/2 hr. The lake borders on Birch St., Bristol.
I'm sure LE has pieced this all together by now,
at least I hope so.

 

[BellaVita]

Earlier I mentioned I believed hiding the body
happened at least in 2 places in that they put it
somewhere on 5/24 when FD returned to Farmington.
Well on 5/24 someone's phone pinged in an
area near 190 Old Farms Rd., Avon at 2:15pm
and stayed there for appx. 1/2 hr. til 2:45pm.
Well, well. 190 Old Farms Rd, Avon happens
to be the location of Avon Self Storage which
somewhere in the past we determined FD had
a unit there.

So did he place the body there temporarily?
Or hide the bike there temporarily?
Something was taken there on date of murder.

After leaving the storage facility a phone pinged in area of 193 Birch St., Bristol which
just happens to be up the road from ESPN
headquarters where MT once worked. Nearby
is a 55 ac. city park with a nice isolated fishing lake. Very remote, wooded land and few buildings closeby. The phone stayed in the area for 1/2 hr. The lake borders on Birch St., Bristol.
I'm sure LE has pieced this all together by now,
at least I hope so.

Great work there. I will need to compare with the vehicle timeline of 5/24.

 

[SkylarSid]

There are multiple warrants using same language. The particular warrant I looked at was dated 6/5 after arrests had already occurred. It is now MOO that the "multiple" reference refers to MS and Albany Ave. MOO.

The warrant I referred to was issued on 6/5 also. I was specifically looking at the language indicating possible "multiple individuals" committing the crime itself, and not just the clean up at MS or in disposing of evidence on Albany Ave (where we already know there was more than one individual). To me, that is HUGE and there is a reason why they think that, but it is not stated. JMO.

 

[Boxer]

I think one thing that we need to keep in mind here, is that the Search Warrants and the Arrest Warrants should be interpreted differently.

For example, the search warrant for 80 MS says they have “probable cause to believe” that 80MS is a “secondary crime scene”. Yes, based on the footage of the Red Tacoma going directly there and all the time FD spent there that afternoon, it would give reason for LE to think that 80MS could be a secondary crime scene, enough evidence for a judge to grant permission for LE to go in and search it and see if that is indeed the case.
BUT, does LE still believe that 80MS was a secondary crime scene after the search? We just don’t know. We do know that the search warrant states “nothing seized” which makes me wonder.
So we can’t be sure if LE currently still considers 80MS to be a “secondary crime scene” or not. Thus the need to take the SW statements with a grain of salt. Many do hold up as this isn’t a “fishing expedition” by any means (and search warrants wouldn’t be granted under such circumstances anyway). So lots probably still does hold true.

So when we look at language in the search warrants, we need to consider that LE view might have changed, after the search was done. The language in the warrants is just to get permission to do the search and seizure. It doesn’t mean that what they find bears that hunch out.

The arrest warrant is much more definitive. They are not going to put things in the arrest warrant that are not seriously substantiated. So statements like that LE believes that FD was driving JDs Suburban away from Welles Lane at 10:25 and that JDs body was in the vehicle, are much more trustworthy. We may not know all the pieces that LE has in coming to that conclusion, but we can be sure that it’s held to a higher standard than the statements in the SWs, which just have to give probable cause to allow a search and seizure, rather than an arrest.

Also with the search warrants, many were issued very very early on, and more information became available, and LE thinking changed, during the course of the investigation. So keeping in mind that what they said back then may have shifted or become more complex in the time since.

Excellent point.