GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #69

[afitzy]

I just watched the Lawyer Lee summary of the Contempt charges against MT and found her expanded and time stamped images from the L&C feed helpful in understanding the issue a bit better. It was interesting that the Lawyer Lee summary shows that MT had her screen strategically tilted both towards the gallery and imo al towards her attorney Audrey Felson/Felsen whatever her name is as I always forget and that the discredited Herman report was taken up and taken down over a period of time in clear view of the attorney sitting next to MT and even possibly by Jon Schoenhorn imo when he sat down at the Defence table. Jon Schoenhorn imo made a quite obvious "MISSTATEMENT" when he told the Judge that he was on his 'testimony cross' and so didn't see what MT had on her screen. I don't believe his statement to be true as there was a period of time when he was sitting at the Defence table when the MT computer screen was tilted towards her attorneys and he was seated and had a clear view of the screen.

Seeing the images of the MT computer screen tilted towards her attorney sitting directly next to her and also seeing the heads of her attorney seeming to look at the computer screen I simply have to ask:

WHY DIDN"T THE STATE INVESTIGATE THE TWO ATTORNEYS SITTING NEXT TO MT FOR THEIR ROLE IN THE REPORT BEING ON MT LAPTOP?

WHY DIDN'T Judge Randolph request that the two attorneys be investigated as part of a larger investigation as to how MT obtained a copy of the discredited Herman Report??

Its quite clear imo when looking at the images presented by Lawyer Lee that Attorney Felson/Felsen spends a good amount of time clearly looking at the MT computer screen and there was a time when Jon Schoenhorn was seated and had a clear view of the MT computer screen as well.

Why do we never see attorneys held accountable for their handling of the discredited report as the stolen FD copy of the Herman report was viewed and handled by: Attorney Michael Rose, GAL Attorney Michael Meehan, Attorney Norm Pattis, Attorney Bowman, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn, and Attorney Audrey Felson/Felsen.

WHY???????

Image from Lawyer Lee Podcast detailed above:
View attachment 493035[/ATTACH]View attachment 493035

 

[DeDee]

I just watched the Lawyer Lee summary of the Contempt charges against MT and found her expanded and time stamped images from the L&C feed helpful in understanding the issue a bit better. It was interesting that the Lawyer Lee summary shows that MT had her screen strategically tilted both towards the gallery and imo al towards her attorney Audrey Felson/Felsen whatever her name is as I always forget and that the discredited Herman report was taken up and taken down over a period of time in clear view of the attorney sitting next to MT and even possibly by Jon Schoenhorn imo when he sat down at the Defence table. Jon Schoenhorn imo made a quite obvious "MISSTATEMENT" when he told the Judge that he was on his 'testimony cross' and so didn't see what MT had on her screen. I don't believe his statement to be true as there was a period of time when he was sitting at the Defence table when the MT computer screen was tilted towards her attorneys and he was seated and had a clear view of the screen.

Seeing the images of the MT computer screen tilted towards her attorney sitting directly next to her and also seeing the heads of her attorney seeming to look at the computer screen I simply have to ask:

WHY DIDN"T THE STATE INVESTIGATE THE TWO ATTORNEYS SITTING NEXT TO MT FOR THEIR ROLE IN THE REPORT BEING ON MT LAPTOP?

WHY DIDN'T Judge Randolph request that the two attorneys be investigated as part of a larger investigation as to how MT obtained a copy of the discredited Herman Report??

Its quite clear imo when looking at the images presented by Lawyer Lee that Attorney Felson/Felsen spends a good amount of time clearly looking at the MT computer screen and there was a time when Jon Schoenhorn was seated and had a clear view of the MT computer screen as well.

Why do we never see attorneys held accountable for their handling of the discredited report as the stolen FD copy of the Herman report was viewed and handled by: Attorney Michael Rose, GAL Attorney Michael Meehan, Attorney Norm Pattis, Attorney Bowman, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn, and Attorney Audrey Felson/Felsen.

WHY???????

Image from Lawyer Lee Podcast detailed above:
View attachment 493035View attachment 493035

The Ah Ha moment for the State is when they receive the note from Jennifer's friend. Law and Crime photog followed the P when he rose from his seat to request a side bar. Her laptop was clearly visible. The font could almost be read. The courtroom grew quiet. I don't have the opp rn to grab the video but do recall actually seeing it happen during livestream.

She deserves 30 days in the Hole plus a sizable monetary punishment for the contempt violation. Chi Ching.

 

[afitzy]

The Ah Ha moment for the State is when they receive the note from Jennifer's friend. Law and Crime photog followed the P when he rose from his seat to request a side bar. Her laptop was clearly visible. The font could almost be read. The courtroom grew quiet. I don't have the opp rn to grab the video but do recall actually seeing it happen during livestream.

She deserves 30 days in the Hole plus a sizable monetary punishment for the contempt violation. Chi Ching.

YES!

The moment you refer to is clearly seen also in the Lawyer Lee summary presentation.

But, watching the trial live imo it wasn't so easy to see that MT was bringing the discredited Herman Report up and down as watching live the focus was on the time that the note was passed from the Gallery to the States Attorney's about the situation, Mama Troconis taps MT on the shoulder and MT closed the laptop up.

The fact that the Herman Report was on the MT laptop and clearly visible for a longer period of time to me shows that this was no accident, BUT I disagree with Lawyer Lee that the two Defence Attorney's didn't see the report as both attorney's at different times were looking at MT and her laptop.

My issue is WHY weren't the attorneys investigated? The MT intent seems clear and the Mama Troconis role was also quite clear. I also don't know why Mama Troconis wasn't investigated and charged as not only did she warn MT but she also extended her arm beyond the gallery area which is NOT permitted as Judge Randolph clearly explained when he admonished the Gallery participants multiple times about Courtroom regulations.

 

[afitzy]

Attorney Audrey Felson/Felsen trying an imo slime ball move to improperly introduce 4 pages of the discredited Herman report into the Court Record 'for ID'.

Attorney Manning properly reprimands the move to Judge Randolph and said any evidence should be introduced correctly during her cross of GAL Atty Michael Meehan.

See Day 22

3:13 time stamp

 

[pernickety]

I just watched the Lawyer Lee summary of the Contempt charges against MT and found her expanded and time stamped images from the L&C feed helpful in understanding the issue a bit better. It was interesting that the Lawyer Lee summary shows that MT had her screen strategically tilted both towards the gallery and imo al towards her attorney Audrey Felson/Felsen whatever her name is as I always forget and that the discredited Herman report was taken up and taken down over a period of time in clear view of the attorney sitting next to MT and even possibly by Jon Schoenhorn imo when he sat down at the Defence table. Jon Schoenhorn imo made a quite obvious "MISSTATEMENT" when he told the Judge that he was on his 'testimony cross' and so didn't see what MT had on her screen. I don't believe his statement to be true as there was a period of time when he was sitting at the Defence table when the MT computer screen was tilted towards her attorneys and he was seated and had a clear view of the screen.

Seeing the images of the MT computer screen tilted towards her attorney sitting directly next to her and also seeing the heads of her attorney seeming to look at the computer screen I simply have to ask:

WHY DIDN"T THE STATE INVESTIGATE THE TWO ATTORNEYS SITTING NEXT TO MT FOR THEIR ROLE IN THE REPORT BEING ON MT LAPTOP?

WHY DIDN'T Judge Randolph request that the two attorneys be investigated as part of a larger investigation as to how MT obtained a copy of the discredited Herman Report??

Its quite clear imo when looking at the images presented by Lawyer Lee that Attorney Felson/Felsen spends a good amount of time clearly looking at the MT computer screen and there was a time when Jon Schoenhorn was seated and had a clear view of the MT computer screen as well.

Why do we never see attorneys held accountable for their handling of the discredited report as the stolen FD copy of the Herman report was viewed and handled by: Attorney Michael Rose, GAL Attorney Michael Meehan, Attorney Norm Pattis, Attorney Bowman, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn, and Attorney Audrey Felson/Felsen.

WHY???????

Image from Lawyer Lee Podcast detailed above:
View attachment 493035[/ATTACH]View attachment 493035

View attachment 493047
View attachment 493046

Yes, yesyes. The same thoughts that have been going thru' my head (even while getting a root canal.) Didn't Judge Hernandez tell prosecution and MT's lawyer Frost to work it out together (in effect) and come to some deal? Then what about any and all lawyers that had to be involved? Felsen? JS? NP? Meehan? Are any and/or all of them being protected? Or were any of them referred to the Bar or to the Chief Disciplinary counsel for investigation? For comparison, iirc, in Sandy Hook plaintiffs v. Alex Jones, for NP's first offense, re the forged affidavit, the judge first referred NP to the Bar (Statewide Grievance Cmte). The SGC referred the matter to a Bar Panel (3 people, I think 2 lawyers and a lay person, or the reverse) for investigation. The Panel found probable cause, and a public hearing was held before the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. NP was represented by counsel. I could find no mention of the hearing in the press. The Courant only reported on the outcome (I think on either Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve, when article could've been missed)--that NP only got a little tsk tsk about it. So when NP was later found to have badly erred again re sharing the SH plaintiffs' confidential health records, the judge skipped going to the Bar about it and sent the matter straight to the CDC. Which resulted in NP's license suspension--which may or may not have finished going thru' appeals (and he seems to still be practicing). So did Judge Hernandez or Judge Randolph refer any lawyer(s) in the Troconis contempt case to the Bar or to the CDC for investigation? Has any journalist made a FOIA request for records that will lend transparency on the issues?

 

[Jmoose]

I just watched the Lawyer Lee summary of the Contempt charges against MT and found her expanded and time stamped images from the L&C feed helpful in understanding the issue a bit better. It was interesting that the Lawyer Lee summary shows that MT had her screen strategically tilted both towards the gallery and imo al towards her attorney Audrey Felson/Felsen whatever her name is as I always forget and that the discredited Herman report was taken up and taken down over a period of time in clear view of the attorney sitting next to MT and even possibly by Jon Schoenhorn imo when he sat down at the Defence table. Jon Schoenhorn imo made a quite obvious "MISSTATEMENT" when he told the Judge that he was on his 'testimony cross' and so didn't see what MT had on her screen. I don't believe his statement to be true as there was a period of time when he was sitting at the Defence table when the MT computer screen was tilted towards her attorneys and he was seated and had a clear view of the screen.

Seeing the images of the MT computer screen tilted towards her attorney sitting directly next to her and also seeing the heads of her attorney seeming to look at the computer screen I simply have to ask:

WHY DIDN"T THE STATE INVESTIGATE THE TWO ATTORNEYS SITTING NEXT TO MT FOR THEIR ROLE IN THE REPORT BEING ON MT LAPTOP?

WHY DIDN'T Judge Randolph request that the two attorneys be investigated as part of a larger investigation as to how MT obtained a copy of the discredited Herman Report??

Its quite clear imo when looking at the images presented by Lawyer Lee that Attorney Felson/Felsen spends a good amount of time clearly looking at the MT computer screen and there was a time when Jon Schoenhorn was seated and had a clear view of the MT computer screen as well.

Why do we never see attorneys held accountable for their handling of the discredited report as the stolen FD copy of the Herman report was viewed and handled by: Attorney Michael Rose, GAL Attorney Michael Meehan, Attorney Norm Pattis, Attorney Bowman, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn, and Attorney Audrey Felson/Felsen.

WHY???????

Image from Lawyer Lee Podcast detailed above:
View attachment 493035[/ATTACH]View attachment 493035

View attachment 493047
View attachment 493046

Judges do seem very reluctant to hold attorneys to account in such situations, don’t they? I am certain that both defense attorneys not only knew what she was doing, but approved, and possibly encouraged it. I think Judge Randolph is certain of it, too. These two aren’t going to be sanctioned though.

 

[Jmoose]

Yes, yesyes. The same thoughts that have been going thru' my head (even while getting a root canal.) Didn't Judge Hernandez tell prosecution and MT's lawyer Frost to work it out together (in effect) and come to some deal? Then what about any and all lawyers that had to be involved? Felsen? JS? NP? Meehan? Are any and/or all of them being protected? Or were any of them referred to the Bar or to the Chief Disciplinary counsel for investigation? For comparison, iirc, in Sandy Hook plaintiffs v. Alex Jones, for NP's first offense, re the forged affidavit, the judge first referred NP to the Bar (Statewide Grievance Cmte). The SGC referred the matter to a Bar Panel (3 people, I think 2 lawyers and a lay person, or the reverse) for investigation. The Panel found probable cause, and a public hearing was held before the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. NP was represented by counsel. I could find no mention of the hearing in the press. The Courant only reported on the outcome (I think on either Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve, when article could've been missed)--that NP only got a little tsk tsk about it. So when NP was later found to have badly erred again re sharing the SH plaintiffs' confidential health records, the judge skipped going to the Bar about it and sent the matter straight to the CDC. Which resulted in NP's license suspension--which may or may not have finished going thru' appeals (and he seems to still be practicing). So did Judge Hernandez or Judge Randolph refer any lawyer(s) in the Troconis contempt case to the Bar or to the CDC for investigation? Has any journalist made a FOIA request for records that will lend transparency on the issues?

Most courts seem protective of lawyers. CT seems to be especially so.

 

[pernickety]

Judges do seem very reluctant to hold attorneys to account in such situations, don’t they? I am certain that both defense attorneys not only knew what she was doing, but approved, and possibly encouraged it. I think Judge Randolph is certain of it, too. These two aren’t going to be sanctioned though.

Not long before MT flashed the report on her computer, the camera showed Felsen telling her something--for a few minutes--during which MT's smile grew bigger and bigger and she seemed to be delighted by what Felsen was telling her. I wonder if it was related to the subsequent flashing of the report by MT???

 

[pernickety]

Most courts seem protective of lawyers. CT seems to be especially so.

Iirc, when Atty Weinstein tried to subpoena NP during the Farber v. Dulos civil case, and NP tried to quash the subpoena, he pleaded Atty-client privilege, but that was the incorrect defense to plead. Then Judge Cesar Noble ruled for NP, but the judge ruled on the correct defense, which NP didn't plead. Weinstein then objected that the court was prohibited from ruling outside the pleadings. However, the subpoena got quashed and NP was essentially protected by the Judicial Branch. MOO.

 

[Tink56]

The Ah Ha moment for the State is when they receive the note from Jennifer's friend. Law and Crime photog followed the P when he rose from his seat to request a side bar. Her laptop was clearly visible. The font could almost be read. The courtroom grew quiet. I don't have the opp rn to grab the video but do recall actually seeing it happen during livestream.

She deserves 30 days in the Hole plus a sizable monetary punishment for the contempt violation. Chi Ching.

After doing several recent searches for Day 22 afternoon video, I can't find two things which to me were important.

Before the afternoon session began, MT opens her screen, slides her chair away from the table and the report in large font is visible. This has been cut off from the edited video I've found.

Then, at the end of the afternoon, if my memory is correct, as MT is leaving she is carrying the folder with the CBS logo. Was this a contract offer from CBS?

Both things, IMO, showed that MT was making the report visible for the media seated near her family. Both make MT's actions more repugnant and vicious as she continues to blame JFd for her being in the courtroom. SMH....certainly this would fall under circumstancial evidence, but am sorry that the video available does not include those early and late views rather than the CT seal.

 

[pernickety]

After doing several recent searches for Day 22 afternoon video, I can't find two things which to me were important.

Before the afternoon session began, MT opens her screen, slides her chair away from the table and the report in large font is visible. This has been cut off from the edited video I've found.

Then, at the end of the afternoon, if my memory is correct, as MT is leaving she is carrying the folder with the CBS logo. Was this a contract offer from CBS?

Both things, IMO, showed that MT was making the report visible for the media seated near her family. Both make MT's actions more repugnant and vicious as she continues to blame JFd for her being in the courtroom. SMH....certainly this would fall under circumstancial evidence, but am sorry that the video available does not include those early and late views rather than the CT seal.

Sharp observations and memory on your part. When I looked at the video the next day, trying to find AF's dialogue with MT and MT smiling, what was shown seemed to be a shortened version of what I remembered.

 

[Tink56]

Sharp observations and memory on your part. When I looked at the video the next day, trying to find AF's dialogue with MT and MT smiling, what was shown seemed to be a shortened version of what I remembered.

I agree about the shortened version of that interaction. My memory sees MT pointing at her screen and AF looking over as MT points to a section of the screen. (And the giggle behavior after reading that particular point in the report.)

I wonder if the Law and Order camera personnel were cleaning up video where they weren't supposed to be filming, per AF's statement to the court about the defense team being told its screens would not be shown.

Perhaps MT's "team" suggested the L & O crew clean up their mistakes?

Hope the prosecution has seen the original versions.

 

[pernickety]

I agree about the shortened version of that interaction. My memory sees MT pointing at her screen and AF looking over as MT points to a section of the screen. (And the giggle behavior after reading that particular point in the report.)

I wonder if the Law and Order camera personnel were cleaning up video where they weren't supposed to be filming, per AF's statement to the court about the defense team being told its screens would not be shown.

Perhaps MT's "team" suggested the L & O crew clean up their mistakes?

Hope the prosecution has seen the original versions.

Were there different cameras? Sometimes I couldn't get the L&C, and got it on a local TV station. Don't remember if that was one of the times.

 

[afitzy]

After doing several recent searches for Day 22 afternoon video, I can't find two things which to me were important.

Before the afternoon session began, MT opens her screen, slides her chair away from the table and the report in large font is visible. This has been cut off from the edited video I've found.

Then, at the end of the afternoon, if my memory is correct, as MT is leaving she is carrying the folder with the CBS logo. Was this a contract offer from CBS?

Both things, IMO, showed that MT was making the report visible for the media seated near her family. Both make MT's actions more repugnant and vicious as she continues to blame JFd for her being in the courtroom. SMH....certainly this would fall under circumstancial evidence, but am sorry that the video available does not include those early and late views rather than the CT seal.

Yes, both the items you mentioned are things I recall. I took a screen shot at the time of the CBS folder and the large screen font image as I guessed it would be snipped eventually. Seems like it has. I wish there was an easy way to save trial footage other than screenshots. If anyone has any idea please post!

 

[afitzy]

Were there different cameras? Sometimes I couldn't get the L&C, and got it on a local TV station. Don't remember if that was one of the times.

I think there was only one feed stream but it did change angle and I don’t know if they did it with multiple cameras or just moving a single camera.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

On the camera feed in the courtroom, during trial it seemed for the most part only one camera behind the prosecution table that may have panned from time to time left - to avoid the jury seated at the right by the large windows. But I thought there were a few views shot from perhaps above the jury and towards the left rear court in areas towards the defense table. (But not to capture the gallery?)

And IIRC once the matter of the shown ‘Report’ on convicted defendant MT”s computer….. it seemed that all in court camera video and news net works feeds and already posted video were perhaps ‘scrubbed’ for reposting so they didn’t inadvertently violate the other court’s order on the sealed Report?

One thing that should be (I would hope!) ….. is that the original in court live feed(s) and recordings should have it ALL as evidence for the proceedings. And that evidence and video, views, or images which shows CL alerting prosecution, prosecution team rising to alert the judge and view defense table MT mother apparently signaling MT, and MT then dropping the laptop cover SHOULD be available for prosecution of the contempt charges! And that evidence should have been provided as discovery in that upcoming case. (Some of us have since mused and chided how much confidence there is in CT court to evaluate and prosecute that MT contempt case. And also belief at minimum defense counsel JS and AF should also be summoned and provide testimony under OATH on this matter.) Some also have posted in these threads that evaluating for possible criminal contempt charges with the sealed Report should include determining electronic history of the files and computer of MT.

As I write this, it seems IMO that perhaps one ‘side’ of this MT case had it in interest to have the video scrubbed and cleaned from possible other use that might arise in contempt of court. I shall sit on my hands and complete typing this post. MOO

 

[afitzy]

On the camera feed in the courtroom, during trial it seemed for the most part only one camera behind the prosecution table that may have panned from time to time left - to avoid the jury seated at the right by the large windows. But I thought there were a few views shot from perhaps above the jury and towards the left rear court in areas towards the defense table. (But not to capture the gallery?)

And IIRC once the matter of the shown ‘Report’ on convicted defendant MT”s computer….. it seemed that all in court camera video and news net works feeds and already posted video were perhaps ‘scrubbed’ for reposting so they didn’t inadvertently violate the other court’s order on the sealed Report?

One thing that should be (I would hope!) ….. is that the original in court live feed(s) and recordings should have it ALL as evidence for the proceedings. And that evidence and video, views, or images which shows CL alerting prosecution, prosecution team rising to alert the judge and view defense table MT mother apparently signaling MT, and MT then dropping the laptop cover SHOULD be available for prosecution of the contempt charges! And that evidence should have been provided as discovery in that upcoming case. (Some of us have since mused and chided how much confidence there is in CT court to evaluate and prosecute that MT contempt case. And also belief at minimum defense counsel JS and AF should also be summoned and provide testimony under OATH on this matter.) Some also have posted in these threads that evaluating for possible criminal contempt charges with the sealed Report should include determining electronic history of the files and computer of MT.

As I write this, it seems IMO that perhaps one ‘side’ of this MT case had it in interest to have the video scrubbed and cleaned from possible other use that might arise in contempt of court. I shall sit on my hands and complete typing this post. MOO

When Atty Manning reported the day after the incident to Judge Randolph she stated that the video had been fully reviewed by their investigators. My guess is that the State has agreement in place with L&C and no doubt got the feed that we all originally viewed and where it was not hard to blow up the feed still shots to see what was on the screen.

I do wonder if the State is going to sweep the entire event under the rug via plea deal?

Still am not understanding WHY none of the attorneys were investigated?

Still wonder if alleged attorney Jon Schoenhorn has returned the MT Venezuelan passport to the Court as he was reprimanded by Judge Randolph in open Court to do and as he was previously ordered by Judge Blawie to do over 3 years ago!

Tick Tock Horn the alleged attorney who thinks that Court Orders are made for other foolish attorneys.....

Tick Tock....

MOO

 

[pernickety]

I do wonder if the State is going to sweep the entire event under the rug via plea deal?

Still am not understanding WHY none of the attorneys were investigated?

MT pleads guilty, gets $100 fine.
Attorney investigation? Similar to the sweatshirt-in-box caper.

 

[Jmoose]

MT pleads guilty, gets $100 fine.
Attorney investigation? Similar to the sweatshirt-in-box caper.

Absolutely gonna happen, just like this. So much for “Justice for Jennifer”!

 

[CalmSeas]

<modsnip - quoted post was off topic>
The behavior of MT’s attorneys was shockingly sloppy and unprofessional. It was horrifying to watch them get away with that! What happened to cause this mess? It seems like there are issues with attorneys, judges and LE.