Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #54

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Attorney seeks transcript of divorce hearing that occurred days before Jennifer Dulos vanished
More antics from JS.
So now he's just a curious member of the public wanting to know what was going on in this "contentious divorce between two rich people."
Does that just mean that MT isn't paying him to run this sideshow?
Maybe he's planning on selling a story or script and he needs it for leverage since he doesn't have anything else juicy to offer up- looking to scrape any old used piece of gum off the street to hawk to the highest bidder.
 
sleuth66 said:
Attorney seeks transcript of divorce hearing that occurred days before Jennifer Dulos vanished
More antics from JS.
So now he's just a curious member of the public wanting to know what was going on in this "contentious divorce between two rich people."
Does that just mean that MT isn't paying him to run this sideshow?
Maybe he's planning on selling a story or script and he needs it for leverage since he doesn't have anything else juicy to offer up- looking to scrape any old used piece of gum off the street to hawk to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, the divorce proceedings are sealed. JS just likes to make it seem like something relevant to MT's case is being withheld from him...right?!

I doubt he's even read the evidence that the prosecution has given him. That would require work and reading....:p:rolleyes:

From the article Schoenhorn said:
“I’m just another member of the public who’s curious about what happened in a public courtroom in contentious litigation between rich people.”
 
Tink56 said:
If I remember correctly, the divorce proceedings are sealed. JS just likes to make it seem like something relevant to MT's case is being withheld from him...right?!

I doubt he's even read the evidence that the prosecution has given him. That would require work and reading....:p:rolleyes:

From the article Schoenhorn said:
“I’m just another member of the public who’s curious about what happened in a public courtroom in contentious litigation between rich people.”
Click to expand...

Yes, sealed-and in what universe would he be entitled to the divorce documents related to the divorce of two people he ISN’T representing? Even if the documents had any mention of his client, it would only be about MT in her role as “paramour” and a person who is not allowed to be present when the children were with their father. If presented in court, it would seem to raise the question: why would his client have purposefully ignored the court’s order that she should not be with fD when his kids were with him, on multiple occasions? I don’t think it would be helpful to MT for JS to attempt to use them in court in her defense.
 
Jmoose said:
Yes, sealed-and in what universe would he be entitled to the divorce documents related to the divorce of two people he ISN’T representing? Even if the documents had any mention of his client, it would only be about MT in her role as “paramour” and a person who is not allowed to be present when the children were with their father. If presented in court, it would seem to raise the question: why would his client have purposefully ignored the court’s order that she should not be with fD when his kids were with him, on multiple occasions? I don’t think it would be helpful to MT for JS to attempt to use them in court in her defense.
Click to expand...
"Be careful what you ask for"--isn't that what they say? Particularly in a legal case.
 
Tink56 said:
Totally agree....John Schoenhorn has a similar track record. The following are just from the Greater Hartford area. I haven't included the defendants names, but here are the results in that ONE jurisdiction..I don't see a "win." The attorney of the guilty? SMH:

View attachment 319781

Whoops....forgot to include: Criminal/Motor Vehicle Attorney/Firm Search
Click to expand...

Makes you think it’s those who think—or hope—that bluster and BS will overcome the facts. MOO.
 
sleuth66 said:
Attorney seeks transcript of divorce hearing that occurred days before Jennifer Dulos vanished
More antics from JS.
So now he's just a curious member of the public wanting to know what was going on in this "contentious divorce between two rich people."
Does that just mean that MT isn't paying him to run this sideshow?
Maybe he's planning on selling a story or script and he needs it for leverage since he doesn't have anything else juicy to offer up- looking to scrape any old used piece of gum off the street to hawk to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

Ugh! So slimy! Even if it were true why he says he wants it, how slimy and nosy! :( He can scrape up the gum or whatever MT left on that sidewalk as she was providing cover for FD stuffing the license plate in the drain. Yep, a sidewalk is a good place to wipe off your hand. :( MOO.
 
Tink56 said:
If I remember correctly, the divorce proceedings are sealed. JS just likes to make it seem like something relevant to MT's case is being withheld from him...right?!

I doubt he's even read the evidence that the prosecution has given him. That would require work and reading....:p:rolleyes:

From the article Schoenhorn said:
“I’m just another member of the public who’s curious about what happened in a public courtroom in contentious litigation between rich people.”
Click to expand...

Oh, the dissembling here! Nauseating! “Just another member of the public” in any context related to JFD? As usual, I’m horrified that he thinks anyone would believe him and then mad that of course he knows we won’t and still pushes that slime our way. Ugh! MOO.
 
LosAngeles said:
These delays must be extremely frustrating for the prosecuting attorneys in the state of Connecticut. Especially in a criminal case and especially in this particular case (domestic violence). By the time they make it to the actual trial, among many challenges, they run the risk of locating key witnesses or better yet, key witnesses lack of recall of the actual events etc…very rough on the prosecution team.
Click to expand...

How do they get so many? I know Covid caused some but it feels like more for these two. MOO.
 
Just dropping by with the reminder that KM is still scheduled for a pre-trial hearing next week. Of course, that will probably change, eh? IMO....MOO

Information is accurate as of November 10, 2021 04:50 AM

Defendant Information
Last, First: MAWHINNEY KENT Represented By: 007660 BUTLER N & GOLD
Birth Year: 1965 Times on the Docket: 22
Docket Information
Docket No: FST -CR20-0241179-T Arresting Agency: CSP TROOP G
Companion:
Program: Arrest Date: 1/7/2020
Court: Stamford JD Bond Amount: $246,000 (This case only)
Bond Type: Multiple Bonds
Miscellaneous: (Released From Custody)
Activity: Pre-Trial Next Court Date: 11/17/2021 9:00 AM
Current Charges
Statute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding
53a-54a CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER B Felony 1 5/24/2019 Not Guilty
 
Tink56 said:
Just dropping by with the reminder that KM is still scheduled for a pre-trial hearing next week. Of course, that will probably change, eh? IMO....MOO

Information is accurate as of November 10, 2021 04:50 AM

Defendant Information
Last, First: MAWHINNEY KENT Represented By: 007660 BUTLER N & GOLD
Birth Year: 1965 Times on the Docket: 22
Docket Information
Docket No: FST -CR20-0241179-T Arresting Agency: CSP TROOP G
Companion:
Program: Arrest Date: 1/7/2020
Court: Stamford JD Bond Amount: $246,000 (This case only)
Bond Type: Multiple Bonds
Miscellaneous: (Released From Custody)
Activity: Pre-Trial Next Court Date: 11/17/2021 9:00 AM
Current Charges
Statute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding
53a-54a CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER B Felony 1 5/24/2019 Not Guilty
Click to expand...

Looks like there is a change! Here we go again (and again...and again)
REMOTE HEARING ON 01/18/2022
Last, First: MAWHINNEY KENT Represented By: 007660 BUTLER N & GOLD
Birth Year: 1965 Times on the Docket: 23
Docket Information
Docket No: FST -CR20-0241179-T Arresting Agency: CSP TROOP G
Companion:
Program: Arrest Date: 1/7/2020
Court: Stamford JD Bond Amount: $246,000 (This case only)
Bond Type: Multiple Bonds
Miscellaneous: (Released From Custody)
Activity: Pre-Trial Next Court Date: 1/18/2022 11:30 AM
Current Charges
Statute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding
53a-54a CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER B Felony 1 5/24/2019 Not Guilty
 
Niner said:
@LosAngeles - probably these 2 charges are still on 11/30/21?

Hartford #H14H-CR19-0281509-T (Violation) & #HHD-CR19-0266274-T (assault).
Click to expand...

Looks like those charges are still set for hearings:

Information is accurate as of November 11, 2021 04:50 AM

Search By: Defendant = MAWHINNEY,First Initial = K

Record Count: 3

FST -CR20-0241179-T
MAWHINNEY KENT DOUGLAS 1965 Hartford GA 14 Awaiting Disposition 11/30/2021 02:00 PM REMOTE HEARING H14H-CR19-0281509-T
MAWHINNEY KENT DOUGLAS 1965 Hartford JD Pre-Trial 11/30/2021 02:00 PM REMOTE HEARING HHD -CR19-0266274-T
 
Thank you for checking that out @Tink56 !
vil-hello2.gif
 
Niner said:
Thank you for checking that out @Tink56 !
vil-hello2.gif
Click to expand...
Here's the state's motion to dismiss Schoenhorn's case against the court reporter for not giving him a transcript of the sealed divorce hearing (re psychologist's testimony)
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=21056112


“Indeed, the court in Valvo specifically addressed the issue of whether a sealing order entered by a judge of the Superior Court in a case could be overturned by another judge of the Superior Court in a separate case with separate parties from the original case. Valvo v. Freedom of Info. Comm’n, 294 Conn. at 543-47. In holding that it could not, the court noted that the argument in support of such a proposition is particularly weak “when a direct challenge to the original ruling can be made by any person at any time in the trial court with continuing jurisdiction, as is the case with sealing orders.”
 
pernickety said:
Here's the state's motion to dismiss Schoenhorn's case against the court reporter for not giving him a transcript of the sealed divorce hearing (re psychologist's testimony)
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=21056112


“Indeed, the court in Valvo specifically addressed the issue of whether a sealing order entered by a judge of the Superior Court in a case could be overturned by another judge of the Superior Court in a separate case with separate parties from the original case. Valvo v. Freedom of Info. Comm’n, 294 Conn. at 543-47. In holding that it could not, the court noted that the argument in support of such a proposition is particularly weak “when a direct challenge to the original ruling can be made by any person at any time in the trial court with continuing jurisdiction, as is the case with sealing orders.”
Click to expand...

Is Schoenhorn stupid, or is this a show he is putting on, primarily for the Troconis family, to justify his fee? Surely, he can’t be stupid, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 77 more.
Total: 3,480 (members: 78, guests: 3,402)

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
3,402
Total visitors
3,480
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,114
Messages
17,963,454
Members
228,687
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top