GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #68

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ruminations said:
I get your point, but the sealed report probably did not deem JD " unfit." If it had, those words would likely have appeared on Troconis' laptop for the world.

Michelle had to know she had only one chance at this broadcast. She would have picked what she thought was most advantageous. A Dx. Is nothing without additional information about its impact. "Unfit," would be quite the impact. If the dx is a personality disorder, a mood disorder, and intestinal infection, or a hangnail, it is freaking serious if the impact is a parent becomes "unfit."

We don't know the contents of the report. But I think it is a very reasonable assumption it did not find Jennifer "unfit."

I know you don't think so either. But I feel like you might be misunderstood.

MOO
Click to expand...
OK, but I believe FD and MT were reading it as she was unfit.
 
Gardenista said:
I have a question that I have been meaning to ask after I read Jennifer's blog posts that never made it to Wayback. The post is titled Boca Weekend. The whole family went to Boca in Feb 2012, FD arriving separately, coming from Greece. This is the pertinent part of the blog post:

It was a very big reunion when we all finally saw Fotis come out of his car in Boca, just an hour before the party on Saturday. He’d flown through Paris to be here on time. Had had his court date on Friday, and it went well. But even if he wins the case again (he keeps winning it), the government can keep appealing. But we are hoping that his lawyer is good enough and they’ll just deem that they’ll never win and stop draining everyone’s time!

So my question is do we know why FD was in court in Greece?

Below is the link to the wall of text posts of her blog that contain her blog posts that never got into Wayback. AFAIK, they can only be seen using this route. I also included a SS of the raw text of the post

This link contains the Boca Weekend post, among others:


This link contains more posts


This is a SS of the post

View attachment 489248
Click to expand...
Thanks for this! So interesting. I'd thought we had read all the JF blog postings but this one is new to me so its fantastic that you found it.

Never heard about any FD lawsuit back in Greece. The reference to the lawsuit as being with the Govt was interesting as was the reference to it draining his time. Wonder how long it had been going on? Seems like it had been awhile.

Curious if it could have related to his Greece citizenship perhaps? IIRC the people that had fled Turkey had a long complex history in terms of citizenship and the Greek government didn't just grant citizenship to many automatically. Perhaps this was the issue FD was dealing with as he identified himself as being born in Constantinople rather than Istanbul but oddly he spoke clearly about the insular and homogenous society in Athens and he seemed to have anger quite clearly against the Country of Turkey. About all we knew of his family was that they were Greek Orthodox in terms of their religion but in terms of precise historical location within the Ottoman diaspora FD was imo quite vague. I wonder if he knew or if he simply didn't want to say?

All this is just a guess based on the timing of the Doulos (name prior to FD changing it to Dulos because the prior spelling meant Slave in Greek) immigration to Greece with his family.

Greek former spelling of FD name: δούλος
Latin former spelling of FD name: doúlos

I do wonder if the Athens based publication iirc Proto Thema ever published anything about the family background in Greece that we never saw here in the US? FD sister Rena I believe is 11-13 years older than FD and has lived with her family in Athens for a long time. I wonder if she ever got full citizenship?

FD had threatened JF with getting the children Greek passports and taking them to Greece, so perhaps the matter was eventually resolved?

Here is some prior information on this topic and Greeks/Turks with citizenship:

Source:

brill.com

‘Two Homelands and None’: Belonging, Alienation, and Everyday Citizenship with the Expatriated Greeks of Turkey

Abstract For the expatriated Greeks of Istanbul and Imbros – some of whom have Greek citizenship, some Turkish – citizenship is neither an irrelevance nor a panacea. Turkish citizenship provided limited protection for ethnic Greeks in Turkey, and Greek citizenship could only go so far to ease...
brill.com brill.com

‘Two Homelands and None’: Belonging, Alienation, and Everyday Citizenship with the Expatriated Greeks of Turkey​

In: Journal of Migration History
Author:
Huw Halstead

Online Publication Date: 10 Oct 2022

Leaving Turkey​

The final decades of the Ottoman Empire in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw extensive conflict, violence and displacement. After the 1919–1922 Greek-Turkish War, brought to an end by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, a compulsory population exchange was enforced between Greece and Turkey, with Orthodox Christians living in Turkey displaced to Greece and Muslims living in Greece forcibly moved in the other direction; religion, not ethnicity, was the criterion for the exchange. There were notable exemptions: the Orthodox Christians of Istanbul and the islands of Imbros and Tenedos (in the Aegean Sea in the Çanakkale province) were permitted to remain in situ, as were the Muslims of Western Thrace in Greece. As a result, some 100-110,000 Greeks in Istanbul, around 10,000 Greeks on Imbros, and a few thousand Greeks on Tenedos became an official minority in the newly established Republic of Turkey, whose rights were protected (theoretically) by both the Lausanne Treaty and the Turkish constitution.11 Around one-third of this community held Greek citizenship, although many had never set foot on Greek soil and held Greek citizenship purely because their forebears had come from former Ottoman territories that became part of the Greek state after Greek independence. The remaining two-thirds were former Ottoman subjects who were granted Turkish citizenship.12 The Greeks of Istanbul ranged across the socioeconomic spectrum, but most were middle-class professionals/traders/employees or skilled workers/craftsmen, whilst the Greeks of Imbros were primarily agriculturalists.13

Possession of Turkish citizenship, however, proved to be scant protection against state persecution. Soon after the signing of the Lausanne Treaty, various measures undermined the Greek community’s rights. In 1926, for instance, the Civil Servant Law was enacted, requiring that all civil servants be Turkish rather than simply Turkish citizens.14 Pressure was also exerted to suppress Greek ethnic identity and the Greek language, for example, through the ‘Citizen, speak Turkish!’ campaign.15 The situation worsened during and after the Second World War. Between 1942 and 1944, non-Muslims were disproportionately targeted by a ‘wealth tax’ (Varlik Vergisi) that imposed harsh and often unpayable duties, with those defaulting having their property confiscated and/or facing deportation to forced labour camps.16 On 6–7 September 1955, Istanbul’s non-Muslim communities fell victim to the state-sanctioned Istanbul Riots, in which rioters attacked non-Muslim properties and people, resulting in widespread damage, injury, sexual assault, including rapes, and several deaths.17 In March 1964, against the backdrop of escalating intercommunal violence in Cyprus, Turkey expelled all Greek citizens from the country – some 10-13,000 people – who were followed by around 30-40,000 Turkish citizens. This was principally because different members of the same family often had different citizenships, such that the expulsion of a single Greek citizen could result in an entire family leaving.18 Meanwhile, on Imbros, a series of measures were eroding the Greeks’ rights and safety, chief amongst them was: the closure of Greek-language schools in 1964 (which were guaranteed by the Treaty of Lausanne); the state confiscation of farming land (ultimately amounting to 90 per cent of the cultivable land); and the introduction of open prisons on the island for serious offenders from the Turkish mainland, who were allowed to wander freely and committed acts of vandalism, thefts, assaults and even murders.19 Greek emigration from Turkey escalated, and the Greek population dwindled: in the 1970s, there were some 10,000 Greeks in Istanbul and around 2,500 on Imbros; by the turn of the century, only 2,500 or so Greeks remained in Istanbul and a few hundred on the two islands.

Oral testimonies paint a mixed picture of everyday life in Turkey and the daily relationships between the Greek minority and the Turkish majority. On the one hand, many expatriates vividly recall a climate of fear, for example, being frightened when speaking Greek in public. Some report that neighbours joined in with the rioting in 1955 or treated them with suspicion during the Cyprus crisis. This pervasive sense of fear even spread to children: one interviewee, Theodoros (b.1951, mg.1973), described an occasion when, as a young boy, he was queueing for ice cream in his Istanbul neighbourhood when his sister, sitting on a wall nearby, began to shout to him in Greek, and his agony at trying to ‘shush’ her – for fear of being singled out as Greeks – without losing his place in the queue. When another interviewee, Stefanos (b.1950, mg.1964), was similarly overheard speaking Greek in public and told by some angry passers-by to ‘speak Turkish’, he evoked citizenship in response, turning to them to say, ‘I am a citizen of this country, and I can speak whatever language I want’. In practice, however, this afforded precious little protection.

On the other hand, many interviewees offered fond memories of cosmopolitan diversity, warm intercommunal interactions, and firm friendships with Turks. Testimonies were filled with recollections of Turkish friends and neighbours protecting Greeks during events such as the Istanbul Riots, either overtly or through cryptic warnings. Fotis’ (b.1950, mg.1976) father – who spoke broken Turkish with a strong accent – was locking up his workplace on the night of 6 September 1955 when a Turkish girl who worked for him pressed a small Turkish flag into his hands, saying to him, ‘you might need this’, and nothing more. On his way home, he was accosted by some rioters, but when they saw the flag, they let him be without him needing to open his mouth and betray himself.20 Memories of strife and memories of harmony thus jostle with one another in expatriate testimony, and oftentimes these contrasting narratives are offered by the same person during an interview.21

Arriving in Greece​

The majority of these departing Greeks resettled in Greece. Although the expatriates did not arrive in the same state of destitution as the refugees who came in the 1920s with the Treaty of Lausanne, many had lost much or all of their financial and material wealth, and the early years in Greece were often difficult. Many interviewees recalled that they or their parents had to work several different jobs to make ends meet, commonly taking on lower paid and less prestigious or less skilled employment than that which they had undertaken in Turkey. Still, whilst living in Turkey, many in the community had idealised Greece: interviewees described seeing Greece variously as a ‘lifeline’, a ‘rescue boat’, a ‘promised land’, and a ‘dream life’. The experience of being driven out of Turkey was bitter and traumatic, and many expatriates hoped – and expected – that they would find sanctuary, security and solace in Greece. To some extent, they did; as Imvriótis Pavlos (b.1970, mg.1987) put it, in Greece they experienced ‘freedom, that feeling that you are not different from the others, as you experienced as a minority [in Turkey], as a fly in the milk’.

Yet, many expatriates were also profoundly embittered by the reception they received in Greece. The Greek state was reluctant to issue Greek citizenship to those expatriates who had arrived with Turkish citizenship (see below), forcing this (sizeable) group to apply for, and periodically renew, residence and work permits at the Aliens’ Bureau (Tmíma Allodapón), which had various practical and psychological implications. The expatriates also found that many in Greece were unaware of their experiences of persecution in Turkey – or even that there were any Greeks left in Turkey after 1923 – and they frequently encountered suspicion and scepticism about their Greek ethnicity. Alexandros (b.1962, mg.1978) from Istanbul complained that he constantly had to explain to native Greeks ‘that you were baptised, that you went to a Greek school, that you ate the same food, that you breathe the same air, that you have two hands and two feet, that you are not an elephant!’ Interviewees were called ‘Turks’ or ‘seeds of the Turks’ by some native Greeks (mirroring, in this sense, the experiences of the refugees in the 1920s). Tasos (b.1949, mg.1964), for instance, remembered people making fun of his accent and how he pronounced words with a ‘fat L’, and when he explained that he was from Istanbul, they would say, ‘so, you are a Turk then’.

Social, cultural, political and religious life in Greece also frequently failed to match the idealised expectations the expatriates had developed whilst living in Turkey. The Polítes – as well as many younger Imvriótes who had grown up partly in Istanbul after the closure of the Greek language schools on Imbros – were accustomed to the cosmopolitanism and urbanism of Istanbul, and found Greek cities to be comparatively backward and parochial. Panagiotis (b.1946, mg.1963) recalled that his first impression of Thessaloniki on arrival from Istanbul was ‘what a village it is here’. In Turkey, the community – largely due to its status as a vulnerable community – was generally aloof from party politics and socially oriented around shared Greek ethnicity. In a reflection of this, expatriates also frequently complained that native Greeks lacked patriotism and unity, tending too much towards political partisanship and egocentric behaviour. Imvriótis Loukas (b.1967, mg.1992), seeking to convey his disappointment with what he perceived as the disunity and anarchy of the Greek political system, joked that when he was living in Istanbul he used to walk past the Greek embassy just to be able to see the Greek flag, but when he arrived in Greece ‘the flag was burning!’ Interviewees also frequently voiced their dissatisfaction with levels of piety in Greece: PolítisMichalis (b.1940, mg.1971), for example, was deeply unimpressed with ‘the [native Greek] who passes by the church, makes the sign of the cross, and then two steps later curses God, Christ, and the Virgin Mary’.
 
A random post of the York Correctional Institute Inmate Handbook from 9/30/2010

Dated for sure but grim reading all the same for those interested.

Not sure how all the rules will be dealt with MT who seems to believe that rules are just for others.

Buckle up buttercup as reality is HERE!

Just a few tidbits:
  1. Addressing Staff. Uniform staff should be addressed by title: “Officer (name)”, “Lieutenant (name)”, “Captain (name).”, Non uniform staff should be addressed either by title or by “Mister or Ms. (name)”. If you do not know the title, address the staff as “Mister or Ms. (name)”. If you do not know the name, use “Sir” or “Ms”.
  2. Following Orders. You must obey any order issued to you by a staff member. If more than one order has been given, obey the last order. Failure to comply with an order will result in disciplinary action.
  3. Personal Conduct. You are required to conduct yourself in a responsible manner.
    1. You are not permitted to engage in behavior that disrupts the order of the facility, threatens security endangers the safety
      of any person, or imperils State or personal property.
    2. You are not permitted to make sexually suggestive remarks or gestures to any person or engage in any sexual activity.
    3. You are not permitted to make excessive noise or to use profanity.

Given the MT fashion focus during her 'Beige Phase' here is the section from the Manual on "CLOTHING":

C. Clothing/Accessory Regulations.
1. You are required to wear the state-issued “Uniform of the Day” outside of your Housing Unit. Possession of another inmate’s clothes or clothing items is not permitted and will subject you to the policy governing Contraband.
  1. “Uniform of the Day” will be as follows:
    a. Standard - blue jeans, maroon shirt and/or gray sweatshirt, winter jacket as issued.
    b. Kitchen Workers - checked pants, white shirt.
    c. Gym Recreation - uniform or sweat pants, (shorts may be worn in the summer – Memorial Day
    thru Columbus Day).
    d. Tier Recreation – uniform/sweatpants with shoes/sneakers. Shower shoes are to be worn to and from
    shower only.
    e. Shorts may be worn in Housing Unit, Recreation Yard and Dayroom from May 1st – Oct 1st.
  2. You must wear your clothing in the way it was designed to be worn. Wearing dirty, damaged, or suggestive clothing is not permitted. Underclothing, including thermals, shall not be visible.
  3. Pant legs shall not be tucked into socks or shoes.
  1. 5 Shoes/sneakers shall be worn in a clean fashion and laces shall not drag on the floor.
  2. 6 All clothing shall be commercially purchased, unaltered, and of a cloth fabric.
  1. Clothing shall not be tight, short, or revealing.
  2. Shirts/blouses shall be properly buttoned and not expose the midriff. Sweatshirts and uniform shirts, with short
    squared off hems designed for exterior wear may be worn outside the waist. White T-shirts must be tucked in.
  3. Hats shall be worn in an appropriate manner. Hats may be worn for religious purposes. Doo rags shall
    not be worn outside the cell, and a head covering which could serve as a hood shall be prohibited. Bandannas,
    homemade caps and stocking caps are not permitted.
  4. You shall be: in the appropriate facility attire when leaving the housing unit; appropriately dressed, at
    a minimum, in recreation wear, while in the housing area; and appropriately covered with a robe and nightwear
    when going to or coming from a shower.
  5. Only prescription eyewear may be worn. Sunglasses are not permitted, unless medically prescribed. st
  6. Upon intake processing, an inmate is issued the following: 2 blankets, 2 sheets, 1 jacket (between October 1
    and Memorial Day), 1 pair of sneakers, 3 pairs of socks, 2 pants, 3 underwear, 3 shirts, 2 bras, 1 towel and an indigent kit which consists of a toothbrush, toothpaste, deodorant, soap, wash cloth, shampoo and a comb.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/policyclearinghouse/Documents/CT - Women's Facility Handbook.pdf



With a song reference of course (apologies in advance...):
Artist: Guns n Roses
Track: Welcome to the Jungle

 

Attachments

  • CT - Women's Facility Handbook.pdf
    392.3 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
lucegirl said:
I go back and forth about why the constant harping on the “report”. I tend to think the Defense used the mere idea of a mysterious report as a distraction and maybe it held more value sealed than unsealed. As @AbbyG said - whether a doctor thought she may have a disorder is a red herring. He murdered her and MT conspired. And the jury agreed.

It just seems so risky on the part of the defense to have suggested that Jennifer was in any way shape or form unfit, let alone less fit than FD. In hindsight - I think the jury held this unfounded insinuation against MT - and rightly so.

Jennifer had full custody because she was the only fit parent. The nanny’s testimony was as close as you could get to knowing what Jennifer was like as a mom and person; it’s just not reasonable to make the absurd leap the defense wants you to make - that the fit parent was suddenly so unfit that the otherwise unchanged unfitness of the parent without custody should expect a big change in his circumstances.

The nanny also gave a first hand account of FD’s unhingedness - as did PG: “Don’t do anything stupid because she might have security cameras.”

Regardless of what was in the report, FD had a huge burden to overcome in the eyes of the Family Court. He needed to demonstrate fitness in his own capacity. He doesn’t suddenly become “fit” because Jennifer may have seen a doctor for stress or whatever; but, she was not unstable, unfit, or throwing up red flags everywhere. You don’t inherit fitness from someone else.

Without even needing to read the report, it is clear that the defense mischaracterized its relevance with respect to any near term change in the custody arrangement. It seems more like others were walking on eggs around FD right until the murder. FD was a hothead and a bully - forcing people to sign NDA’s in unreasonable circumstances. The dinner party guests, may have just gone along with whatever story he was spinning to avoid confrontation; just tell him what he wants to hear.

FD probably bullied the GAL who seemed to skirt around saying anything concrete; the GAL spoke in generalities and longer term milestones - “Yes Fotis, we all know how much you love your kids and are excited to ski with them at the Pond. The court’s goal is reunification; so yes, you should be optimistic.”

The reality was FD was chipping, scratching, clawing and trying to get a toe hold anywhere just to get supervised custody - I mean that is intense that the supervisor had to be within eyesight and earshot of him at all times; it’s really hard for me to imagine that FD was able to cope mentally with having a strange, female babysitter monitoring his interaction with his children; he is a control freak; people work for him; nobody tells him what to do; this supervised visit on May 22, 2019 was much closer in time to the murder than the Hermann hearing and the feedback FD got from his then lawyers (I believe that it was sometime in April 2019 that FD’s lawyer Rose, said he reviewed the Herman report with FD and FD was happy about it.) It makes more sense that being supervised, without an actual change in that condition anywhere in sight, was more a tipping point than some possibly promising words on paper in Family Court. I would think whatever happiness that resulted from the supposedly favorable report would’ve been overshadowed by his being made subservient to a court appointed monitor two days before the murder.

He doesn’t strike me as somebody who would have patiently waited around and suddenly become a rule follower - hoping a Family Court would change his circumstances. He was impulsive, and I think he was humiliated having to be supervised. Even if he had been able to graduate from needing a court monitor, Jennifer would have still been in the picture. His path to any kind of custody was moving at a snail’s pace.

He was not cooling off he was angry.

I think the State’s point in closing that “nothing had changed” in terms of custody or is his fitness was spot on. There was no imminent game changer due to Jennifer’s fitness.

I also think that FD and MT could have agreed to act happy at the dinner party, and spin the custody report to create a facade and happy ending story in order to throw anyone off the scent that it was really Murder Eve.

This is probably the one burning question I have for the jury which is what did they make of the mention of the custody report and all of the commotion around it every time it came up?
Click to expand...
Brilliant. I wish I had remembered the court monitor being at the last picnic visit. He would have his eyes on FD constantly, so no way for FD to plant a camera or a hide a kill bag.
 
afitzy said:
A random post of the York Correctional Institute Inmate Handbook from 9/30/2010

Dated for sure but grim reading all the same for those interested.

Not sure how all the rules will be dealt with MT who seems to believe that rules are just for others.

Buckle up buttercup as reality is HERE!

Just a few tidbits:
  1. Addressing Staff. Uniform staff should be addressed by title: “Officer (name)”, “Lieutenant (name)”, “Captain (name).”, Non uniform staff should be addressed either by title or by “Mister or Ms. (name)”. If you do not know the title, address the staff as “Mister or Ms. (name)”. If you do not know the name, use “Sir” or “Ms”.
  2. Following Orders. You must obey any order issued to you by a staff member. If more than one order has been given, obey the last order. Failure to comply with an order will result in disciplinary action.
  3. Personal Conduct. You are required to conduct yourself in a responsible manner.
    1. You are not permitted to engage in behavior that disrupts the order of the facility, threatens security endangers the safety
      of any person, or imperils State or personal property.
    2. You are not permitted to make sexually suggestive remarks or gestures to any person or engage in any sexual activity.
    3. You are not permitted to make excessive noise or to use profanity.

Given the MT fashion focus during her 'Beige Phase' here is the section from the Manual on "CLOTHING":

C. Clothing/Accessory Regulations.
1. You are required to wear the state-issued “Uniform of the Day” outside of your Housing Unit. Possession of another inmate’s clothes or clothing items is not permitted and will subject you to the policy governing Contraband.
  1. “Uniform of the Day” will be as follows:
    a. Standard - blue jeans, maroon shirt and/or gray sweatshirt, winter jacket as issued.
    b. Kitchen Workers - checked pants, white shirt.
    c. Gym Recreation - uniform or sweat pants, (shorts may be worn in the summer – Memorial Day
    thru Columbus Day).
    d. Tier Recreation – uniform/sweatpants with shoes/sneakers. Shower shoes are to be worn to and from
    shower only.
    e. Shorts may be worn in Housing Unit, Recreation Yard and Dayroom from May 1st – Oct 1st.
  2. You must wear your clothing in the way it was designed to be worn. Wearing dirty, damaged, or suggestive clothing is not permitted. Underclothing, including thermals, shall not be visible.
  3. Pant legs shall not be tucked into socks or shoes.
  4. 5 Shoes/sneakers shall be worn in a clean fashion and laces shall not drag on the floor.
  5. 6 All clothing shall be commercially purchased, unaltered, and of a cloth fabric.
  6. Clothing shall not be tight, short, or revealing.
  7. Shirts/blouses shall be properly buttoned and not expose the midriff. Sweatshirts and uniform shirts, with short
    squared off hems designed for exterior wear may be worn outside the waist. White T-shirts must be tucked in.
  8. Hats shall be worn in an appropriate manner. Hats may be worn for religious purposes. Doo rags shall
    not be worn outside the cell, and a head covering which could serve as a hood shall be prohibited. Bandannas,
    homemade caps and stocking caps are not permitted.
  9. You shall be: in the appropriate facility attire when leaving the housing unit; appropriately dressed, at
    a minimum, in recreation wear, while in the housing area; and appropriately covered with a robe and nightwear
    when going to or coming from a shower.
  10. Only prescription eyewear may be worn. Sunglasses are not permitted, unless medically prescribed. st
  11. Upon intake processing, an inmate is issued the following: 2 blankets, 2 sheets, 1 jacket (between October 1
    and Memorial Day), 1 pair of sneakers, 3 pairs of socks, 2 pants, 3 underwear, 3 shirts, 2 bras, 1 towel and an indigent kit which consists of a toothbrush, toothpaste, deodorant, soap, wash cloth, shampoo and a comb.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/policyclearinghouse/Documents/CT - Women's Facility Handbook.pdf



With a song reference of course (apologies in advance...):
Artist: Guns n Roses
Track: Welcome to the Jungle

Click to expand...
What? No prison stripes? No neon orange jumpsuit? WTH?
 
lucegirl said:
I go back and forth about why the constant harping on the “report”. I tend to think the Defense used the mere idea of a mysterious report as a distraction and maybe it held more value sealed than unsealed. As @AbbyG said - whether a doctor thought she may have a disorder is a red herring. He murdered her and MT conspired. And the jury agreed.

It just seems so risky on the part of the defense to have suggested that Jennifer was in any way shape or form unfit, let alone less fit than FD. In hindsight - I think the jury held this unfounded insinuation against MT - and rightly so.

Jennifer had full custody because she was the only fit parent. The nanny’s testimony was as close as you could get to knowing what Jennifer was like as a mom and person; it’s just not reasonable to make the absurd leap the defense wants you to make - that the fit parent was suddenly so unfit that the otherwise unchanged unfitness of the parent without custody should expect a big change in his circumstances.

The nanny also gave a first hand account of FD’s unhingedness - as did PG: “Don’t do anything stupid because she might have security cameras.”

Regardless of what was in the report, FD had a huge burden to overcome in the eyes of the Family Court. He needed to demonstrate fitness in his own capacity. He doesn’t suddenly become “fit” because Jennifer may have seen a doctor for stress or whatever; but, she was not unstable, unfit, or throwing up red flags everywhere. You don’t inherit fitness from someone else.

Without even needing to read the report, it is clear that the defense mischaracterized its relevance with respect to any near term change in the custody arrangement. It seems more like others were walking on eggs around FD right until the murder. FD was a hothead and a bully - forcing people to sign NDA’s in unreasonable circumstances. The dinner party guests, may have just gone along with whatever story he was spinning to avoid confrontation; just tell him what he wants to hear.

FD probably bullied the GAL who seemed to skirt around saying anything concrete; the GAL spoke in generalities and longer term milestones - “Yes Fotis, we all know how much you love your kids and are excited to ski with them at the Pond. The court’s goal is reunification; so yes, you should be optimistic.”

The reality was FD was chipping, scratching, clawing and trying to get a toe hold anywhere just to get supervised custody - I mean that is intense that the supervisor had to be within eyesight and earshot of him at all times; it’s really hard for me to imagine that FD was able to cope mentally with having a strange, female babysitter monitoring his interaction with his children; he is a control freak; people work for him; nobody tells him what to do; this supervised visit on May 22, 2019 was much closer in time to the murder than the Hermann hearing and the feedback FD got from his then lawyers (I believe that it was sometime in April 2019 that FD’s lawyer Rose, said he reviewed the Herman report with FD and FD was happy about it.) It makes more sense that being supervised, without an actual change in that condition anywhere in sight, was more a tipping point than some possibly promising words on paper in Family Court. I would think whatever happiness that resulted from the supposedly favorable report would’ve been overshadowed by his being made subservient to a court appointed monitor two days before the murder.

He doesn’t strike me as somebody who would have patiently waited around and suddenly become a rule follower - hoping a Family Court would change his circumstances. He was impulsive, and I think he was humiliated having to be supervised. Even if he had been able to graduate from needing a court monitor, Jennifer would have still been in the picture. His path to any kind of custody was moving at a snail’s pace.

He was not cooling off he was angry.

I think the State’s point in closing that “nothing had changed” in terms of custody or is his fitness was spot on. There was no imminent game changer due to Jennifer’s fitness.

I also think that FD and MT could have agreed to act happy at the dinner party, and spin the custody report to create a facade and happy ending story in order to throw anyone off the scent that it was really Murder Eve.

This is probably the one burning question I have for the jury which is what did they make of the mention of the custody report and all of the commotion around it every time it came up?
Click to expand...
Certainly, strategically the “mystery” of the report and the insinuation that it was “favorable” to FD (and MT- remember they emphasized she was interviewed for it too) was to serve a particular, contaminating purpose.

I think we now know at least some part of what MT thought was so critical and exonerating in the report- because despite it being sealed, MT succeeded in getting 3 words, in 70-so point font, from the sealed report, broadcast to the world via the media (if only indirectly through the contempt warrant, since the media was too gun-shy to fall for MTs trap that day in court and thus waited for its repetition in the warrant to cover them.)

Borderline Personality Disorder.

[as reported in the Hartford Courant and other outlets:
www.courant.com

Sealed custody report viewed on Michelle Troconis’ laptop during trial, contempt warrant alleges

An arrest warrant affidavit obtained by the Hartford Courant details the contempt of court charge that Michelle Troconis incurred during her criminal trial.
www.courant.com www.courant.com

Like the rest of her defense (alibi scripts, sexy showers, etc), I think MT and FD conspired and agreed to keep repeating this mantra: (BPD/ “the custody report”, “serious psychological issues”) if they got caught, and believed if they did so, everything would work out fine.

eg:

We heard MT say it to LE in her interviews, we heard AB try to shush her when she wanted to rely on “the report” to answer what she thought happened to JD.
And we saw JS take off like a zombie with it after the T clan hired him on, going so far as to act like a lemming in his bizarre drive to bludgeon every court in CT to unseal this golden tablet.

I think it’s possible that FD convinced MT this was their real alibi- that they could use the “diagnosis” in “the report” to exonerate themselves.
We saw NP fall for that line, crystallizing the “Gone Girl” mantra, saying in interviews all kinds of crazy unsubstantiated things about JFD- that she had a drug habit, lifelong substance abuse issues, a heroin addiction and a boyfriend in Cambodia, etc.
NP didn’t just make that up, FD must have fed him at least some of that (don’t discount the NP bull€*^# generator).

So like she clung to repeating the alibi scripts without veering course, MT also clung to the defense that JFD was “crazy” and would leave her kids (maybe hop on a commuter train at Talmadge Hill…an aside: didn’t NP/FD/MT consider that someone like JFD would have made a more classy escape? nb: Did FD consider perhaps utilizing the station himself as a backup escape if the notoriously unreliable Tacoma’s check engine light had come on??)

Back to the point. How or why the BPD got into the report we won’t know, nor does it matter one whit.

However, given Mama T (D&D Psych) and 2 T daughters (Michi and CuCu) psych backgrounds, one can’t help but wonder if early on, they had sticky fingers in the whole process- perhaps coaching FD for his interviews, etc. We don’t know why Herman walked off the stand, though the article @afitzy posted suggests that Herman was anxious of cross examination in prior cases- and who knows what lies FD may have told, or what privileged knowledge about JDs mental health, he may have had and fed into the report.

I think that it is possible that Mama T as well as MT (and possibly sister Cucu) had their hands in this as well, as early as during the crafting phase of the report perhaps, or certainly after the fact.
IIRC FD initially rejected the choice of Herman (who was the second choice after Heller’s original suggestion to do the eval wasn’t available) and FD filed an objection to Herman in court but then withdrew it (something along these lines- check court records for actual events). Perhaps clan T convinced him he could salvage things with some carefully crafted responses?

I mean MT had what like 69 questions about JDs BPD, had to seek professional psychological input on how JD and her BPD would affect the rest of MTs life (so she assumed FD was going to marry her or at least that she’d be spending the rest of her life tethered to FD, the man who had a Rolodex full of women aliased as men in Greek at his fingertips??). And MT, who we see is not exactly the brightest bulb, thought these questions up all on her own?
Look what we’ve seen in terms of Mama T and CuCu stepping in to save Michi…they seem to have that shtick down as they must have done it before…the out of wedlock pregnancy with the boss, etc.

Obviously in the LE interviews, AB gives clear body and literal language that he’s not going to go with a defense based on “the report” and given that she has no other defense, I imagine that MT and her handlers were
none too happy about this. While FD was alive and NP was hawking the Gone Girl line, they probably thought they had it covered.

But once FD was out of the picture, there was no mouthpiece anymore to front the JFD= BPD defense that apparently both FD (“Gone Girl”) and MT (psych diagnosis via “the report”) we’re so heavily vesting their future on.

Enter JS…who seemed to be willing to do anything- no matter how bizarre and rabidly unprofessional [as documented in such eloquent detail by @lucegirl] to bring that report in, and ultimately, to use it as his only piece of real evidence (“she didn’t know what was in the bags” is not an evidence- based argument).
Given this bizarre behavior, it’s hard to believe JS wasn’t eventually made into a paid savant for the T clan…clearly he’s made a $$ off the billables over the 4 years of non stop motions he’s filed in this case (and he worked weekends too during trial!! Imagine that!).

But he never did succeed in fulfilling [Mama Ts? MTs? By now his own transference…] fantasy of getting the report admitted into evidence.

And so, as the last days of the trial rounded the bend, in a final act of desperation by someone who knows, if only subconsciously, that they are doomed, MT just kept hitting that zoom button on her laptop over the words “borderline personality disorder”- as if FD was summoning her from the grave- “that will be our defense. Never deviate. Just keep repeating that no matter what they say. That will explain everything.”:
She was afraid of losing custody. She would leave the children (no matter a non sequitur…). She had a drug habit. She wrote a novel with a Gone Girl plot. She could have staged her blood in the garage (at the civil deposition LA was asked by FDs lawyer if her boyfriend worked in a phlebotomy lab..). BPD. BPD. BPD.
Rinse and repeat. And if it doesn’t come out in the wash…hit the zoom button again, for all to see.

Epilogue: MTs in prison, maybe for most of the rest of her life. Who has psychological issues now??

(obviously) MOO.
 
Last edited:
Megnut said:
Question: this continues to niggle me. Because I can't trust FD or the Inmate. Is there any way that they manipulated the doctor/diagnosis/report? The Inmate and her 700 questions... did that come before or after that hearing? Who has that many questions? It actually sounds more like a recipe for a diagnosis. Alibi scripts meet mental health scripts.

Maybe I'm totally off but something about it sits not right.

JMO
Click to expand...
Little about the report content makes much sense imo. I do very much wonder of the involvement of Mama T and Crew in the interview process and frankly management of the entire process by FD and MT. Regardless of what the report contained there was no change in custody (FD motion denied) and visitation (remained supervised which had to enrage FD imo). The murder of JF followed shortly after all this happened in Family Court.

JF had physical custody of the children since leaving 4JX and had demonstrated the ability to care for the children as well as support them. JF had filed all of her financial paperwork properly with the Court and paid for everything related to the Children as well as the Family Court proceedings so far as I can tell. FD even petitioned at one point for JF to pay his attorneys fees and this motion was denied. FD never filed truthful financial statements and paperwork with the Court in the 2 years of the case and also never paid a dime of support for the children.

As I mentioned previously, I believe Judge Heller had left the discredited Herman report in the rear view mirror and was fixated on FD and his finances shortly before the murder of JF. Judge Heller was enraged that FD with this assistance of his Attorney Michael Rose had filed yet another false financial report and Judge Heller called him a liar on the record and seemed done with both FD and his corrupt imo attorney. Atty. Michael Rose was just a recent addition to the FD Attorney "RAT PACK" but FD had been lying about his financial situation via filing false reports in Court previously via his prior attorneys.

I believe all we know is that the Dr walked out of the hearing and didn't finish his testimony. We heard Horn make reference to the issue being one of payment but IDK if this was ever confirmed. Judge Heller immediately filed to have the report in its unfinished state sealed.

Wonder if Herman walked out of the hearing while he was being questioned either by Judge Heller or Atty Middler (JF Atty)?

In Family Court on 5/1/19 JF/Atty filed to have GAL Atty Michael Meehan removed (489). IDK if this was related to the perceived favouritism of Meehan towards FD or perhaps an allegation that FD copy a copy of the discredited report from Meehan? Judge Heller conducted an investigation on the issue of the stolen report which was sealed so we never saw that either iirc. Following the investigation Judge Heller behind closed doors removed FD Atty Michael Rose so FD was without Counsel for a period of time. I don't think Judge Heller ever issued an order on the Removal of the GAL that I can see in the record but the GAL Atty Michael Meehan was never dismissed on the record that I can see and carried on as the representative of the children until Custody transferred to GF.

After the murder of JF, on 6/24/19 FD filed a motion (509) to Unseal the Custody Report. I don't see Judge Heller ever ruling on this motion. This took place during the period when FD was fighting with GF for custody of the children post 'disappearance' of JF. Also during the battle period between GF and FD there was the motion by FD for a psychological exam of GF. GF as we know ultimately retained custody of the children and I don't believe FD ever saw his children again even though it was reported by the NYP that they visited him when he was in a coma at the hospital in the Bronx and his life support was removed shortly thereafter iirc.

MOO
 
Last edited:
Sorry to ask - but I ran thru the last 10 pages - and noted a PSI hearing on 3/18/24 for Troconis - and she is not expected to be there - Correct?? I have been busy with my sister who is visiting me from Sweden - so need help! TIA! :)
 
afitzy said:
A random post of the York Correctional Institute Inmate Handbook from 9/30/2010

Dated for sure but grim reading all the same for those interested.

Not sure how all the rules will be dealt with MT who seems to believe that rules are just for others.

Buckle up buttercup as reality is HERE!

Just a few tidbits:
  1. Addressing Staff. Uniform staff should be addressed by title: “Officer (name)”, “Lieutenant (name)”, “Captain (name).”, Non uniform staff should be addressed either by title or by “Mister or Ms. (name)”. If you do not know the title, address the staff as “Mister or Ms. (name)”. If you do not know the name, use “Sir” or “Ms”.
  2. Following Orders. You must obey any order issued to you by a staff member. If more than one order has been given, obey the last order. Failure to comply with an order will result in disciplinary action.
  3. Personal Conduct. You are required to conduct yourself in a responsible manner.
    1. You are not permitted to engage in behavior that disrupts the order of the facility, threatens security endangers the safety
      of any person, or imperils State or personal property.
    2. You are not permitted to make sexually suggestive remarks or gestures to any person or engage in any sexual activity.
    3. You are not permitted to make excessive noise or to use profanity.

Given the MT fashion focus during her 'Beige Phase' here is the section from the Manual on "CLOTHING":

C. Clothing/Accessory Regulations.
1. You are required to wear the state-issued “Uniform of the Day” outside of your Housing Unit. Possession of another inmate’s clothes or clothing items is not permitted and will subject you to the policy governing Contraband.
  1. “Uniform of the Day” will be as follows:
    a. Standard - blue jeans, maroon shirt and/or gray sweatshirt, winter jacket as issued.
    b. Kitchen Workers - checked pants, white shirt.
    c. Gym Recreation - uniform or sweat pants, (shorts may be worn in the summer – Memorial Day
    thru Columbus Day).
    d. Tier Recreation – uniform/sweatpants with shoes/sneakers. Shower shoes are to be worn to and from
    shower only.
    e. Shorts may be worn in Housing Unit, Recreation Yard and Dayroom from May 1st – Oct 1st.
  2. You must wear your clothing in the way it was designed to be worn. Wearing dirty, damaged, or suggestive clothing is not permitted. Underclothing, including thermals, shall not be visible.
  3. Pant legs shall not be tucked into socks or shoes.
  4. 5 Shoes/sneakers shall be worn in a clean fashion and laces shall not drag on the floor.
  5. 6 All clothing shall be commercially purchased, unaltered, and of a cloth fabric.
  6. Clothing shall not be tight, short, or revealing.
  7. Shirts/blouses shall be properly buttoned and not expose the midriff. Sweatshirts and uniform shirts, with short
    squared off hems designed for exterior wear may be worn outside the waist. White T-shirts must be tucked in.
  8. Hats shall be worn in an appropriate manner. Hats may be worn for religious purposes. Doo rags shall
    not be worn outside the cell, and a head covering which could serve as a hood shall be prohibited. Bandannas,
    homemade caps and stocking caps are not permitted.
  9. You shall be: in the appropriate facility attire when leaving the housing unit; appropriately dressed, at
    a minimum, in recreation wear, while in the housing area; and appropriately covered with a robe and nightwear
    when going to or coming from a shower.
  10. Only prescription eyewear may be worn. Sunglasses are not permitted, unless medically prescribed. st
  11. Upon intake processing, an inmate is issued the following: 2 blankets, 2 sheets, 1 jacket (between October 1
    and Memorial Day), 1 pair of sneakers, 3 pairs of socks, 2 pants, 3 underwear, 3 shirts, 2 bras, 1 towel and an indigent kit which consists of a toothbrush, toothpaste, deodorant, soap, wash cloth, shampoo and a comb.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/policyclearinghouse/Documents/CT - Women's Facility Handbook.pdf



With a song reference of course (apologies in advance...):
Artist: Guns n Roses
Track: Welcome to the Jungle

Click to expand...

She's toast.
 
Honest question, did Herman ever physically meet JFd?

FD seemed to be something of a Teflon Don. Did he load his sessions with fantastical tales concocted in light of input from the merry band of psych majors? Overpainting JFd as some sort of frail woman with a perpetual case of the vapors? And he, the quintessential caretaker, smootherover, as if...

We recall JFd afraid, running from him, into the room that LA and some children happened to be in. Scary aggressor, FD shape shifted right before their eyes. Suddenly calm, nary a worry in the world. To make JFd look riled and upset for no reason at all (never mind that he was terrorizing her moments before). Narcs aren't called crazy-makers without cause. It's their trade. All FD had to do was list (and/or invent) JFd's reactions to his aggressions without divulging his actions.

Let's say that JFd ever felt some paranoia. Now we know FD was close enough to Welles to take photos of her security lights. Let that sink in. He even showed them to two people who never thought to ask the obvious: how did you get these photos? Why do you have these photos? Why are you STALKING JFd?

Now that we know that FD was methodical in carrying out murder and that JFd was a victim of both DV and HDV, I wonder what psychologists would like to say now about their respective psychological profiles?

Only one healthy person here. JFd, on the morning of 5/24, getting her children off to school, planning to get them to orthodontic appointments later, the loving everyday actions of a dialed-in mother. While the Inmate was abandoning her daughter at school so she could commence, unburdened, with alibi building while FD was pedaling like a madman to Welles with his abduction/murder kit strapped to his back. Heartless, demonic duo.

I trust nothing FD said or did-or-didn't pay his lawyers and doctors to say.

JMO
 
Last edited:
Sorry to ask - but I ran thru the last 10 pages - and noted a PSI hearing on 3/18/24 for Troconis - and she is not expected to be there - Correct?? I have been busy with my sister who is visiting me from Sweden - so need help! TIA! :)
 
Megnut said:
Honest question, did Herman ever physically meet JFd?

FD seemed to be something of a Teflon Don. Did he load his sessions with fantastical tales concocted in light of input from the merry band of psych majors? Overpainting JFd as some sort of frail woman with a perpetual case of the vapors? And he, the quintessential caretaker, smootherover, as if...

We recall JFd afraid, running from him, into the room that LA and some children happened to be in. Scary aggressor, FD shape shifted right before their eyes. Suddenly calm, nary a worry in the world. To make JFd look riled and upset for no reason at all (never mind that he was terrorizing her moments before). Narcs aren't called crazy-makers without cause. It's their trade. All FD had to do was list (and/or invent) JFd's reactions to his aggressions without divulging his actions.

Let's say that JFd ever felt some paranoia. Now we know FD was close enough to Welles to take photos of her security lights. Let that sink in. He even showed them to two people who never thought to ask the obvious: how did you get these photos? Why do you have these photos? Why are you STALKING JFd?

Now that we know that FD was methodical in carrying out murder and that JFd was a victim of both DV and HDV, I wonder what psychologists would like to say now about their respective psychological profiles?

Only one healthy person here. JFd, on the morning of 5/24, getting her children off to school, planning to get them to orthodontic appointments later, the loving everyday actions of a dialed-in mother. While the Inmate was abandoning her daughter at school so she could commence, unburdened, with alibi building while FD was pedaling like a madman to Welles with his abduction/murder kit strapped to his back. Heartless, demonic duo.

I trust nothing FD said or did-or-didn't pay his lawyers and doctors to say.

JMO
Click to expand...
I found this link in CT judiciary that I believe describes the report format and process.


My recollection is that the Court works off a list of pre approved providers. The professionals are PHd, PsyD or MDs and have to meet the approval of both parents and the Court. I believe Judge Hellers first choice for the report wasn’t available and so the parties settled on Herman. I just checked the Stamford courthouse location on ct judiciary website under authorised providers and it doesn’t seem like he is listed there presently.

Once the provider is chosen and agreed to then all the parties are interviewed. This includes parents and children.IMG_1071.jpeg
 
pernickety said:
I wasn't aware he sued the family court clerk. I believe JS did file a writ of mandamus in another court to have the court compel the Stamford official court reporter to produce a transcript to him of the family court hearing at which Dr. Herman began to testify about the report, but then refused to testify further, causing Judge Heller to seal the hearing (and the report). There's a CT statute that says the court reporter is required to produce transcript for anyone who requests it and pays for it, providing the hearing wasn't sealed. JS alleged Judge Heller didn't seal the hearing per procedural rules. The CT Atty General represented the court reporter. AG gave JS part of transcript, but not Herman's testimony. CT SC ruled to the effect that one court couldn't overrule another court's ruling and that JS should go to the family court to request the redacted part of the transcript. As far as I know, he didn't try that. Lucegirl, or other verified attorneys, please correct me if I'm wrong on my understanding of this.
Click to expand...
I’m sure this is common knowledge but here goes. Why did Dr Herman begin testifying in family court and then apparently still on the stand refuse to continue his testimony? Is that what happened? Why? And then Judge Heller sealed the report because Dr Herman would not continue his testimony? Yikes. TIA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 73 more.
Total: 3,174 (members: 74, guests: 3,100)

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
3,100
Total visitors
3,174
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,415
Messages
17,986,857
Members
229,131
Latest member
Migrant
Back
Top