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

[Seattle1]

So…temporarily overturned? And they could suspend his license again (I hope)?

Yes. The CT Appellate Court overturned the ruling to suspend NP's license BUT also order a new hearing on the matter. So the unsuspended (license) period could be short lived.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

On the particular issue of safeguarding the Herman Report contents at trial I believe Atty Manning did excellent work and saved the day when it appeared Judge Randolph was simply exhausted and not paying adequate attention. The only words I have for Jon Schoenhorn continuing to battle against Judge Randolph's prior ruling that the Herman Report COULD NOT be entered as evidence is DISRESPECTFUL to the prior judicial ruling and DISGUSTING in his deceit and decision to LIE to Judge Randolph when called on his behavior. It was thuggish behavior and it was mirrored in the behavior that we saw from Atty Audrey Felson in her cross examinations of two other imo disgraced attorneys, GAL Meehan and Michael Rose; both of whom I believe did not tell the truth in their testimony on the stand.

Atty Manning along with her colleague Atty McGuiness imo were both impressive in their performance and professionalism both pre trial and during trial, particularly given the circumstances of having to work with a Press *advertiser censored* Defence Attorney such as Jon Schoenhorn who abused both the States Attorneys and the judicial process extensively imo during the 3 year pretrial period with a long series of improbable, poorly prepared and poorly executed pretrial motions including his multiyear farcical quest to obtain the unsealng of the Herman Report from Family Court. Watching the many leaked Zoom calls (leaked by Schoenhorn BTW along with pretrial evidence he leaked many times to the Press - he was admonished to not do this but no Judge ever stopped him and so he continued to do it over and over), showed him ill prepared, complaining about trivial matters with no documentation and taking up precious court time and resources.

IMO it was all quite shameful and I wish the Press that give air time to the ridiculous claims of the entire Troconis family that MT did not get a 'fair trial' could see the entire judicial system bending over backward to accommodate the ridiculous and often times laughable claims of her equally ridiculous attorney.

I don't think I will ever forget the Zoom hearing of Schoenhorn complaining for over an hr to Judge Blawie iirc about how the siezed computers and electronics belonging to MT, her daughter and her mother that I believe wer siezed from 4JX hadn't been returned to them by the State. The State patiently replied that the items were being examined as evidence but that if MT needed her daughters computer back or even her Mother's computer returned to simply provide the identifying information to the State and they would expedite the review and return the items. This insane discussion went on for over 2 hrs iirc and all the State wanted was a list of items requested to be returned. NEITHER Schoenhorn nor MT or her mother ever spent the time to identify their electronics to the State for return. Their goal was simply to waste time and throw stones. The sheer laziness of Schoenhorn was epic imo and was seen over and over and this computer/electronics example was classic because imo if he had simply done the work to compile a list of items to present at the hearing for the Judge to decide upon it might have been a productive exercise. BUT NO. This is not what he wanted to do as he simply wanted a forum to complain and obstruct and throw stones at the State. The State at that time I believe had over 25 electronic items taken from 4JX and simply asked for MT and Schoenhorn to ID the items they wanted expedited and Schoenhorn and MT couldn't be bothered to comply. Calculate the cost of 6 attorneys plus the Judge and support staff on a Zoom call for 2 hrs on this insanity. Judge Blawie finally had enough and demanded a list of items from Schoenhorn to be delivered to the State but I don't believe that this ever was delivered. This issue was a minor one but it was just one of many many others that took place and wasnt designed to be substantive to the defence of his client. IMO it was shameful and IDK why the Judges and State's Attorneys bent over backward to accommodate this continuing behavior from Schoenhorn? I also wonder where the Troconis family funds came from to finance this assault on the CT Judiciary as only a few of these trivial motions was ever won by Schoenhorn?

IMO it was all designed to simply allow MT to live in CO and be with her daughter as what was going on had little to nothing to do with the pretrial evidentiary process for most of his imo useless motions. It made me angry though as MT should have been brought to trial ages ago and the Judges allowed the farce of the Schoenhorn clown show to waste time for YEARS. At times watching this play out I wondered if he was simply setting the framework for a future claim of incompetent counsel, it was simply that bad. Even when he did score a win such as with the MT cell phone, it effectively shot his defence in the foot as he had nothing substantive to back up the improbable claim that MT was chattering away on Albany Ave and had no idea what was going on. The lack of the cell phone didn't stop him from making ridiculous claims at trial and I'm glad the jury saw through his poor presentation on the issue.

There were so many pretrial moments with Schoenhorn where I simply prayed for a Judge to stand up and hold him to some level of professional conduct and performance but it simply never happened. The pretrial period was punctuated with motion after motion that were poorly written, poorly presented and with citations that oftentimes bore little relevance to the issue at hand. Just processing the paper generated by Schoenhorn imo was an unnecessary burden on CT as I believe it was intentionally abusive and obstructive and I say this fully recognizing the value of a vigorous defence. The defence of MT such as it was, was imo in no way effective, vigorous or remotely professional.

I think one of the more insane moments was the multiyear quest to have the MT ankle monitors removed. These hearings went on over and over and the Judge had to listen to hours of complaints and view hundreds of photos of MT ankle etc. It was lunacy imo particularly given that MT, a defendant charged with conspiracy to commit murder along with her other 5 charges, was allowed to leave CT and travel extensively during the pretrial period. I think it might have been Judge White who finally stopped the insanity in one of the hearings by saying that there would be no way to adjust the ankle monitor such that MT would be able to fit it into a ski boot and be able to SKI! YES, multiple hearings about the ankle bracelet removal all because MT couldn't ski. Welcome to the world of extreme lunacy and extreme white privilege courtesy of the CT Judiciary!

How many defendants with her similar charges to those of MT are able to jet around the US, attempt to go skiing and take up residence outside the jurisdiction of the charges?

MOO

Yes, and so true^^!!! Thanks! The positives I take away from this long trial include the posting and comradery developed and present on this WS thread relating to following the case. Thanks again to all that helped contribute!!! (Including a few of the now deleted messages…… ) And just a few more days to the sentencing phase.

The other positives I retain include the professional and amazing fortitude of the JF family, friends, her mother GF, and her mother’s attorney…… and (as you noted!) the amazing work of Judge Kevin Randolph to preside over the case - and the deft and tireless work of CT state’s attorneys Michelle Manning and Sean McGuinness and all the investigators. All are to be commended IMO.

May 31….. MOO

 

[Jmoose]

Yes. The CT Appellate Court overturned the ruling to suspend NP's license BUT also order a new hearing on the matter. So the unsuspended (license) period could be short lived.

Did they unsuspend him simply because he appealed? So he is taking cases while the license is active again…imagine being the client of a guy whose license can be suspended again in the middle of your case.

 

[Seattle1]

I have to admit to not fully understanding the Judge Randolph comment about possibly tossing one of the charges (Schoenhorn apparently filed yet another motion about the issue) and I haven't had the courage to read more poorly written world salad motions from Jon Schoenhorn on the matter either. I'd always thought that all the charges were very clearly drafted to relate to separate and distinct actions/crimes and so I didn't see what Schoenhorn was arguing (my guess is he didn't know either which is how I'm justifying to myself to not search out this no doubt silly motion). IDK if Judge Randolph was concerned about the appeal issue on the matter? Will have to wait to see how it plays out.

^^rsbm

IMO, it became a ridiculous exercise to report on-- let alone read, just one more defense motion by JLS!

I believe he ended this fight at 1.25 to 500. And the .25 is for the outstanding double jeopardy argument relative to conspiracy, and whether each location warrants a charge, or if it's only a single charge if the same conspiracy event (i.e, destroy evidence of Jennifer's murder).

4/10/24

But Randolph said Wednesday, he will consider vacating one of the two counts of conspiracy to commit evidence tampering after the defense argued the second violated double jeopardy laws, which prohibit anyone from being prosecuted twice for the same crime.

The counts pertain to two separate events on different days in different towns—the disposal of evidence in Hartford on May 24 and the cleaning and detailing of a red pickup truck in Avon on May 29.

But Attorney Jon Schoenhorn said the prosecution alleged the goal of both events was to destroy evidence of Jennifer Dulos’ presumed murder.

Schoenhorn argued state late doesn’t allow multiple charges for a single conspiracy. Randolph called that “a colorable claim,” which he will consider.

The judge said he will issue a ruling on whether he will vacate one of those conspiracy charges at the start of Troconis’ sentencing hearing on May 31.

Disposal of evidence equals 1 or 2 charges?

 

[Seattle1]

Did they unsuspend him simply because he appealed?

Technically, the decision to suspend NP's license was in-fact put on hold pending the Appellate Review, but as a rule, the act of simply filing an appeal does not un do anything!

Here, the CT Appellate rendered a decision that the lower Court Judge was in error when he ruled NP violated certain professional conduct rules. However, the high Court Ordered a new Judge decide on possible sanctions for misconduct which they found to be valid, and upheld this finding (i.e., misconduct which could also result in a suspension).

This is actually a good example of how difficult it is to prove intent versus an innocent mistake over sealed documents.

NP's argument to the Appellate was the opposing party gave him more than 400K pages of docs in discovery-- where about 4K of those pages contained the families' medical records.

At the request of his client's (Jones) attorney located in Texas, NP's office sent an external hard drive with the records to the Jones lawyer, and that lawyer shared it with another Jones lawyer. But more important-- the documents were never publicly released. JMO

Court overturns suspension of Alex Jones' lawyer in Sandy Hook case

A Connecticut court on Thursday overturned a six-month suspension given to a lawyer for conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for improperly giving Jones’ Texas attorneys confidential documents, including the medical records of relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The...

www.nbcconnecticut.com

The state Appellate Court ruled that a judge incorrectly found that attorney Norman Pattis violated certain professional conduct rules and ordered a new hearing before a different judge on possible sanctions. The court, however, upheld other misconduct findings by the judge.

The trial judge, Barbara Bellis, suspended Pattis in January 2023, saying he failed to safeguard the families’ sensitive records in violation of a court order, which limited access to the documents to attorneys in the Connecticut case. She called his actions an “abject failure” and “inexcusable.”

Pattis had argued there was no proof he violated any conduct rules and called the records release an “innocent mistake.” His suspension was put on hold during the Appellate Court review.

 

[sassyblue]

Pattis had argued there was no proof he violated any conduct rules and called the records release an “innocent mistake.” His suspension was put on hold during the Appellate Court review.

SBM
Innocent mistake? That man has no innocence left to spare on a mistake.

 

[MollyDDD]

@Megnut, What was her inmate number again? Tried to remember and just couldn't recall.

Seems appropriate imo to render her existence to that of a number at this point given all that has gone on to get to this point. Writing and thinking about the history of this tragic case simply by following the footsteps of MT as she moved with her daughter from Miami, FL to West Hartford, CT and the many many decision points along the way in all that she did with FD, all I can say at this point is I'm praying to see the only type of justice available at this time meted out on the 30th. Justice won't bring back JFD for her children, family and friends but its the best that the imperfect system can deliver. I'm praying also for Judge Randolph as he personally endured over 3 years with this case and its clear to me that it took alot out of him even though he remained a consummate professional every step of the way and took the 'high road' when Jon Schoenhorn and Audrey Felson and MT took up permanent residence imo on the 'low low road' ALWAYS.

Wasn't it 166xxx?

MOO

Inmate #433612,

 

[BJarv]

My conclusion too. I do believe the infamous one knows things about certain folks in high political places in both state government and beyond, and he is protected because of what he knows. Remember Judge Cesar Noble, who protected him from Atty Weinstein's subpoena in the Farber civil case against Dulos? By pleading on NP's behalf--by citing a defense in his order that NP failed to plead! Despite a prohibition in CT rules of court against a judge ruling outside the pleadings!

Yes, Judge Noble was the WORST! I actually was so irritated I wrote a letter (waste of time I KNOW...) to Chief Judge and States Attorney about that event. I know it was a fruitless effort but seeing the comments from Pattis with the self satisfied sneer when questioned about what happened simply enraged me at the time as he well knew that what happened was wrong.

I went back the other day and looked at how MT was protected by Attorney Bowman from having to participate in the FD Civil Trial when imo she was probably about as guilty as he was! Bowman did his in/famous REDACTED response for MT and I believe she never had to utter a word in her deposition as she took the 5th on every question. I don't think I will ever understand why GF an Atty Weinstein didn't sue MT at that time but they probably knew she wasn't worth the time, wouldn't speak against FD and simply didn't have the money.

I do hope though that GF and Atty Weinstein DO SUE MT and somehow rope in the entire eveil Troconis family into civil litigation for wrongful death. IDK if they are waiting for appeal to be heard or sentencing to happen, IDK but I just hope it happens and financially crushes the entire evil crew that supported the MT and FD relationship and participated in the divorce proceedings.

MOO

 

[BJarv]

Technically, the decision to suspend NP's license was in-fact put on hold pending the Appellate Review, but as a rule, the act of simply filing an appeal does not un do anything!

Here, the CT Appellate rendered a decision that the lower Court Judge was in error when he ruled NP violated certain professional conduct rules. However, the high Court Ordered a new Judge decide on possible sanctions for misconduct which they found to be valid, and upheld this finding (i.e., misconduct which could also result in a suspension).

This is actually a good example of how difficult it is to prove intent versus an innocent mistake over sealed documents.

NP's argument to the Appellate was the opposing party gave him more than 400K pages of docs in discovery-- where about 4K of those pages contained the families' medical records.

At the request of his client's (Jones) attorney located in Texas, NP's office sent an external hard drive with the records to the Jones lawyer, and that lawyer shared it with another Jones lawyer. But more important-- the documents were never publicly released. JMO

Court overturns suspension of Alex Jones' lawyer in Sandy Hook case

A Connecticut court on Thursday overturned a six-month suspension given to a lawyer for conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for improperly giving Jones’ Texas attorneys confidential documents, including the medical records of relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The...

www.nbcconnecticut.com

The state Appellate Court ruled that a judge incorrectly found that attorney Norman Pattis violated certain professional conduct rules and ordered a new hearing before a different judge on possible sanctions. The court, however, upheld other misconduct findings by the judge.

The trial judge, Barbara Bellis, suspended Pattis in January 2023, saying he failed to safeguard the families’ sensitive records in violation of a court order, which limited access to the documents to attorneys in the Connecticut case. She called his actions an “abject failure” and “inexcusable.”

Pattis had argued there was no proof he violated any conduct rules and called the records release an “innocent mistake.” His suspension was put on hold during the Appellate Court review.

On the 'innocent mistake' claim, doesn't he have a basic 'duty of care' requirement to know what documents are being sent and to whom and why? You can't just hit the 'send' button and then claim that there were 'too many pages to read' and that is why you didn't know what you were sending. Seems incompetent, lazy, inept and professionally ruinous too.

Pattis it seems has a hard time keeping staff as most if not all of the professional staff in his firm appear to have left and who knows what support staff he even had at the time these documents were improperly sent?

Honestly, it just seems like pure laziness imo to claim that he got a document dump (happens every day) and couldn't be bothered to look through it all before sending.

Pattis use of language is an ongoing source of amusement and so I'm going to now claim "innocent mistake' for every lazy and stupid error that I make where I put clients and their data/information at risk! Don't think it will fly!

MOO

 

[pernickety]

Pattis it seems has a hard time keeping staff as most if not all of the professional staff in his firm appear to have left and who knows what support staff he even had at the time these documents were improperly sent?

He also has a hard time keeping a law partner. Smith has apparently left and now it's Pattis and Paz. AIR, Paz was once an associate in his firm who left some time ago and she is now apparently back, as a named partner. Smith, AIR, was once with NP, left, came back as a named partner, then left again. It's like one of those staged "farces", where actors go in and out of doors. IMO it would also make a good board game (if the players are served a little wine.)

 

[BJarv]

If I'm not mistaken, I think Bellis was the Chief Administrative Judge, too?

Yes, here is the announcement of her elevation in 2022.

Judge Barbara Bellis Named Connecticut's Chief Administrative Judge of Civil Matters | Connecticut Law Tribune

A Superior Court judge since June 2003, Bellis has served at geographical area courthouses in Danbury, Bridgeport, Norwalk and New Haven.

www.law.com

 

[BJarv]

^^rsbm

IMO, it became a ridiculous exercise to report on-- let alone read, just one more defense motion by JLS!

I believe he ended this fight at 1.25 to 500. And the .25 is for the outstanding double jeopardy argument relative to conspiracy, and whether each location warrants a charge, or if it's only a single charge if the same conspiracy event (i.e, destroy evidence of Jennifer's murder).

4/10/24

But Randolph said Wednesday, he will consider vacating one of the two counts of conspiracy to commit evidence tampering after the defense argued the second violated double jeopardy laws, which prohibit anyone from being prosecuted twice for the same crime.

The counts pertain to two separate events on different days in different towns—the disposal of evidence in Hartford on May 24 and the cleaning and detailing of a red pickup truck in Avon on May 29.

But Attorney Jon Schoenhorn said the prosecution alleged the goal of both events was to destroy evidence of Jennifer Dulos’ presumed murder.

Schoenhorn argued state late doesn’t allow multiple charges for a single conspiracy. Randolph called that “a colorable claim,” which he will consider.

The judge said he will issue a ruling on whether he will vacate one of those conspiracy charges at the start of Troconis’ sentencing hearing on May 31.

Disposal of evidence equals 1 or 2 charges?

@Seattle1, Oh my. What a Schoenhorn word salad brain twister extravaganza for sure and I do wonder if esteemed counsel was perhaps, "blunt blowin'? Glad I didn't read the motion but thanks for the clarification as I was quite confused (dazed too).

I'm curious to see how Judge Randolph explains this in Court as the counts related to two separate events on different days etc. iirc.

VERY CONVENIENT NOW IMO for Schoenhorn to argue jeopardy issues as you would have thought that this would have more appropriately been argued long ago during the pretrial period after the charges were filed?

I'm still confused as to how two separate events by MT that involved disposal of evidence are now somehow merged in the mind of Schoenhorn into a single conspiracy simply because they related to disposal of evidence? Its an interesting question as the jury clearly believed that conspiracy broadly defined existed but saw the MT activities as two separate events that were separate and distinct from each other and then convicted accordingly.

Curious also as the State no doubt had other examples of MT destroying evidence and no doubt chose the actions to charge that were clear and winnable imo. BUT, could the State have stacked up all the evidence of MT destroying evidence and charged accordingly to the point where there could be say 10 such charges? Very curious to see what the State says in its argument and how Judge Randolph rules? It just seems that Defendants aren't always charges for all of their misdeeds as the Prosecution charges selectively. But, it just seems that if multiple examples of breaking the law exist for a particular Defendant even if broadly charged under the umbrella of Conspiracy that they ought to stand individually as they are not the same. In thinking about the issue I guess what I'm seeing is that the issue is destruction of evidence and MT was charged twice for this act. IDK, the use of the word conspiracy attached to the act of destruction of evidence mucks up the issue that MT tampered with evidence at least twice and on two separate occasions. I just don't see if Schoenhorn was concerned about double jeopardy that he didn't argue this issue long ago and perhaps the State could have adjusted the charges? Or, perhaps there are simply limited charging options relates to evidence tampering and the State charged based on the available options?

I left here to go read the charge language again and WS had a 'burp' and everything I wrote before went up into the ether....MT was charged both for tampering AND for conspiracy to commit tampering. A local CT lawyer (see below) actually used the MT scenario in his website presentation on the tampering charge (he didn't address the conspiracy aspect of tampering that MT was charged with and convicted of and which I believe is the subject of the latest Schoenhorn word salad motion and reference to double jeopardy......

Here is the charge language from a lawyers website [C.G.S. § 53a-155 – Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence] on tampering (not conspiracy tampering) that I found but what is quite funny is that he uses the MT charges as an example which is why I'm including it here:

C.G.S. § 53a-155 – Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence​

Tampering with Evidence Generally
Physical evidence is often the most reliable form of proof of a crime. Accordingly, courts place significant importance on the reliability and authenticity of physical evidence presented in a criminal proceeding. Connecticut's legislature has made it a serious felony to plant evidence or tamper with evidence that will be used in a criminal investigation or proceeding. It is essential to realize that the statute extends to criminal investigations and official proceedings, which "are about to be commenced."Hence, it is important to not participate with others in the destruction or alteration of evidence.[BBM as MT clearly didn't get the memo on this one!].

The Crime of Tampering with Evidence Requires a State's Attorney to Prove the Following Facts:
To be convicted of tampering with evidence in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-155, the prosecutor has to prove the following elements of the crime:
Two Situations:

• A. The accused believing that a criminal investigation by a law enforcement agency or an official proceeding is pending, or about to be instituted;
• Alters, destroys, conceals or removes any physical evidence;
• To impair its verity or availability in such criminal investigation or official proceeding - OR
• Makes false evidence with a purpose to mislead a public servant engaged in such criminal investigation or proceeding

Examples
A man kills his estranged wife. He chops up her body and buries it in the woods. He asks his girlfriend to help him drive around Hartford and discard garbage bags filled with bloody clothes of the victim and cleaning products used to clean up the crime scene. Since the items discarded were physical evidence of a murder that the man and his girlfriend would have reasonably believed would have soon been the result of a criminal investigation, their action would be illegal tampering with evidence in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-155. In this example, it does not matter that the criminal investigation had not started. The circumstances of the accused's actions would be evidence of their state of mind that they believed a criminal investigation was imminent.

Here is an article on all the charges:

A breakdown of the charges Michelle Troconis has been found guilty of

Michelle Troconis has been found guilty of conspiring to murder Jennifer Dulos in 2019 and five other counts. A six-member jury returned its verdict Friday morning after more than two full days of deliberating. Troconis sobbed as the guilty verdicts were read. She was found guilty of the...

www.nbcconnecticut.com

Here is the original AA for MT:

Jennifer Dulos Case: Read the Full Michelle Troconis Arrest Warrant

Fotis Dulos’ girlfriend, 45-year-old Michelle Troconis, of Avon, has been arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Bond was set at $2 million and she is expected to appear in Stamford Superior Court Wednesday morning.

www.nbcconnecticut.com

Tampering with physical evidence - not in dispute with Schoenhorn​

• Found guilty on two counts, relating to May 24 and May 29, 2019 events
• Class D felony
• Up to 5 years in prison

Conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence - apparently in dispute with Schoenhorn​

• Found guilty on two counts, relating to May 24 and May 29, 2019 events
• Class D felony
• Up to 5 years in prison

From CT Website:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-155

Sec. 53a-155. Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence if, believing that a criminal investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency or an official proceeding is pending, or about to be instituted, such person: (1) Alters, destroys, conceals or removes any record, document or thing with purpose to impair its verity or availability in such criminal investigation or official proceeding; or (2) makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false and with purpose to mislead a public servant who is or may be engaged in such criminal investigation or official proceeding.

(b) Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence is a class D felony.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 157; P.A. 15-211, S. 9.)

History: P.A. 15-211 amended Subsec. (a) by adding provision re criminal investigation conducted by law enforcement agency and making technical and conforming changes.

Cited. 214 C. 540; 236 C. 514; 237 C. 339. Section applies, no matter what stage the police have actually reached in their investigation, provided defendant believes it is probable that an official proceeding will arise; omission of the term “investigation” from section excludes situations in which defendant believes only an investigation, but not an official proceeding, is likely to take place. 314 C. 354.

Cited. 1 CA 540; 6 CA 394; 25 CA 624. Section does not require a temporal proximity between the alleged act and the subsequent official proceeding; element re pending or about to be instituted official proceeding was satisfied when defendant reasonably could have contemplated that an official proceeding was likely to arise. 147 CA 53.

MOO

 

[pernickety]

The Crime of Tampering with Evidence Requires a State's Attorney to Prove the Following Facts:
To be convicted of tampering with evidence in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-155, the prosecutor has to prove the following elements of the crime:
Two Situations:

• A. The accused believing that a criminal investigation by a law enforcement agency or an official proceeding is pending, or about to be instituted;
• Alters, destroys, conceals or removes any physical evidence;
• To impair its verity or availability in such criminal investigation or official proceeding - OR
• Makes false evidence with a purpose to mislead a public servant engaged in such criminal investigation or proceeding

Couldn't that also apply to NP and the dark sweatshirt? Either it was the one Pawel said he found in the bucket in his returned vehicle and put in FD's garage or mudroom, which NP concealed from LE, OR it was a different dark sweatshirt NP got elsewhere and maybe hoped to spring as evidence in a Perry Mason moment at the trial of FD, had FD lived to go on trial?

 

[Seattle1]

On the 'innocent mistake' claim, doesn't he have a basic 'duty of care' requirement to know what documents are being sent and to whom and why? You can't just hit the 'send' button and then claim that there were 'too many pages to read' and that is why you didn't know what you were sending. Seems incompetent, lazy, inept and professionally ruinous too.

Pattis it seems has a hard time keeping staff as most if not all of the professional staff in his firm appear to have left and who knows what support staff he even had at the time these documents were improperly sent?

Honestly, it just seems like pure laziness imo to claim that he got a document dump (happens every day) and couldn't be bothered to look through it all before sending.

Pattis use of language is an ongoing source of amusement and so I'm going to now claim "innocent mistake' for every lazy and stupid error that I make where I put clients and their data/information at risk! Don't think it will fly!

MOO

I'm not familiar with the initial charges or NP's Appellate Brief and don't have time to research it but what I do know is that the high Court upheld the decision that NP was guilty of misconduct, and requested a different judge (other than Bellis) determine punishment. Nobody here (including myself) is saying NP has clean hands in the Jones case!

However, relative to the document exchange violation which was overruled, true, all attorneys have a duty of care but this wasn't a situation where NP knowingly selected, and attached a file, and pushed send!

Here, his office sent an external hard drive with some 400,000 documents (received in discovery) to a Jones attorney located in Texas but failed to extract about 4,000 pages of the 400,000 that were ordered not to be shared outside of CT. The alleged violation was then multiplied when this attorney shared the documents with yet another attorney outside of CT.

It seems to me that if NP had done the same but sent the hard drive to an attorney within CT, there would be no records violation, and NO STORY.

Again, I'm not defending the legal worm, NP, but in the spirit of fairness, we should also ask how this error came to light. For all we know, NP could have discovered the error and attempted to correct the situation only to learn that the Texas attorney had also shared the discovery dump with another attorney. Did NP request each attorney destroy the protected documents and self-report this to the Court? I don't know.

What we know for fact is that the documents ordered not shared outside of CT were never disclosed publicly by NP or the other attorneys in possession of the documents. In other words, by all accounts, each safeguarded the protected records which was the intent of the Court Order.

IMO, this fact likely weighed heavily on the higher Court when deciding the intent of NP and overruling the decision, specific to the document exchange, of the lower court.

And, in comparison to the MT's case, (and why we are discussing NP), we know the hearing where the Herman report was being presented was declared a Mistrial, voided, the report sealed by the Court, as if neither happened.

IIRC, seems to me that MT obtained a copy of the Herman report before it was Ordered sealed, and nobody came forward to report they were aware MT had a copy of the sealed report. I recall Attorney Bowman nodding "no" to MT when she was wanting to refer to the Herman report during questioning by police. I don't believe Bowman read the sealed report but learned about the content from MT.

We know that after several Motions by JLS, he was finally granted permission to view the sealed Herman report. IMO, this is not comparable to NP's incident where the protected pages were produced in discovery.

IMO, if challenged, JLS would likely defend himself that he safeguarded the report as required and does not know how MT got the report and that she did not get it from him.

 

[Seattle1]

Tampering with physical evidence - not in dispute with Schoenhorn​

• Found guilty on two counts, relating to May 24 and May 29, 2019 events
• Class D felony
• Up to 5 years in prison

Conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence - apparently in dispute with Schoenhorn​

• Found guilty on two counts, relating to May 24 and May 29, 2019 events
• Class D felony
• Up to 5 years in prison

^^rsbm

The Court had no problem whatsoever rejecting JLS claim (multiple times) that the case should be heard in Hartford because from day one, there were always two, solid, undisputed claims the defendants tampered with physical evidence in both Hartford and Avon, and murdered (or conspired to murder) MT at her home in New Canaan. It would have been foolish for JLS to argue there were not two counts of evidence tampering after he made several Motions saying the same!

However, I think the Court was not as certain that the state doesn’t allow multiple charges for a single conspiracy, as argued by JLS, and requested additional time to rule on this subject.

Randolph called that “a colorable claim,” which he will consider.

A colorable claim is a plausible legal claim. This means that the claim is “strong enough” to have a reasonable chance of being valid if the legal basis is generally correct and the facts can be proven in court.

And why I gave JLS a .25 in his 1.25 to 500 Motions denied. MOO

ETA: JLS prevailed on suppressing MT's phone from evidence at trial.

 

[BJarv]

We know that after several Motions by JLS, he was finally granted permission to view the sealed Herman report. IMO, this is not comparable to NP's incident where the protected pages were produced in discovery.

IMO, if challenged, JLS would likely defend himself that he safeguarded the report as required and does not know how MT got the report and that she did not get it from him.

I think its on this point that you clearly articulate about JLS possibly defending himself based on the fact that he 'safeguarded the report' that I have the most difficulty with how the Herman Report was handled by Judge Blawie in his decision (an error of major proportions imo) and then by Judge Randolph. Judge Heller said no copies could be made of the report and that any attorney (or their client) that needed to read the report had to do so in the office of GAL Meehan.

YET we saw a copy made by Judge Blawie and given to JLS who then gave the report or pages from the report to Audrey Felson. We don't know if LJS digitized the report and we don't know who he shared it with but it seems pretty clear he didn't follow the guidelines of Judge Heller. MT could have gotten the report from either of her attorneys but I agree with you that she had it long ago from FD as they discussed it extensively with the psychologist that they went to as MT was "in fear for her life from JFD and was contemplating the life as a mother of 6" etc. insanity.

I do wonder if JLS ever has returned his copy and the copy given to Audrey Felson to Judge Blawie or Judge Heller? Why was no investigation done of the attorneys regarding the report? MY guess is that JLS doesn't even have the report in a secured location in his office. Its probably sitting on the top of his desk right next to the unreturned Venezuelan passport belonging to MT that should have been returned to the Court over 3 years ago by him but never was. IMO entire episode with Herman report being given by Judge Blawie was an administrative disaster but par for the course with lazy Judge's, State's Attorney's that simply don't care and attorneys who have no fear of consequences ever.

I can't comment on the Pattis document leak situation fully as I didn't follow the Jones insanity fully but I agree its not similar to the JLS situation as it seems more like typical Pattis laziness and lack of administrative staff (I think his firm imploded and lost almost all of its staff during the Jones case) that created the error with the medical information release. But with Pattis I would never say never either as he too has a long history of leaking confidential information in motions and via discovery to put it into the public domain. To the extent that his act was willful then I hope he is punished but I won't hold my breath on the issue as it seems there are no consequences for attorney misconduct in CT.

I would argue that JLS did not follow the guidelines put down by Judge Heller on the report in any substantive way and my issue is that none of the Judges that have dealt with the report made any effort that I can see to maintain the guidelines imposed by Judge Heller. Judge Heller mandated that no copies of the report be made and yet a copy was made by Judge Blawie and given to JLS with the assumption (foolish and wrong imo) that it be treated as Judge Heller originally ordered. All this happened with zero pushback from the State's Attorney.

I'm not sure whether it matters much (or if it can even be determined how MT got the report) as no investigation that has been made public has made this information known. The issue is imo that JLS had a client with the report in her possession, obviously on her laptop, and must have discussed the report extensively with MT and her mother given that they (or whoever paid the legal bills) paid for his time for over a year to get the report unsealed by Family Court and made available for use in the Criminal Court Matter. The JLS action to get the report from Family Court (wacky litigation against the Court Clerk iirc etc.) was farcical as the probability of achieving success was imo nonexistent given the sealed history of the report. BUT YET we saw many many legal hours billed along with an unsuccessful trip to Appellate Court iirc where I believe AG Tong argued for the State. WHY? IIRC over a year was spent on the crusade by JLS and he no doubt didn't do a years worth of work for FREE? Why was this report so important in the mind of MT and Mama Troconis? Was it all just to support the argument that MT as she termed herself was 'healthy' and JFD was not? Simply makes no sense to me and never has as the report was never even recognized as evidence in Family Court.

IIRC the JLS appeal motion was unintelligible imo but the AG Tong memorandum of response was quite clear and easy to follow on the matter. JLS lost the appeal but in hindsight I'm not sure he and MT/Mother cared about the appeal loss as it was just another example of JLS leaking sealed and confidential information as well as evidence in his motions as he had been doing for 3 years and putting it into the public domain.

Its enraging that while the State's Attorney's complained about the JLS leaking (also a well known Pattis technique as we saw earlier with FD defence and gag order) evidence and confidential materials, NOT ONE JUDGE imposed any consequences either on JLS or Pattis.

Frankly imo the JLS behaviour became more and more bold over time as it was clear that not one Judge in Stamford would impose any consequences for any leaks of sealed report on other confidential information about JFD. This allowed him to effectively put the Herman report into the public domain even though it was sealed and the Jury was well aware of the existence of the Herman report even though they didn't get to read it. How is this right or just? IMO its not but nobody in the Judiciary cared and even AG Tong who knew about the existence of the Herman Report did zero to make sure it was safeguarded in line with the original ruling of Judge Heller. I think the entire episode was a tragedy for the involved victim JFD as the Judiciary system and the so called "Officers of the Court" absolutely failed her as they chose to disregard the rules.

Ive long asked where Victims Services (staffed by attorneys and had a representative in Stamford that never answered the phone or responded to correspondence btw) were on the matter of the Herman Report as they supposedly would be the person to look out for the interests of murdered victim JFD. But, these folks by all accounts hid under their desks and did zero to protect confidential information about JFD gained from the Herman and other confidential documents from family court. Not sure what these folks do, who they report to or what accountability to the citizens of the State they might have but as it relates to JFD imo they have been worthless and ghosts.

JLS spoke about the Herman report extensively both in trial and to the Press and his client spoke about the contents of the report to LE and extensively on social media for years and then had a copy of the report on her laptop in court. Judge Heller had mandated that the report could not be publicly discussed (a point missed by both Judge Blawie and Judge Randolph imo) and yet the report has been discussed publicly now for years by JLS and MT. I think Judge Blawie believed that JLS would follow the rules imposed by Judge Heller regarding the report but then when it was clear that JLS wasn't following the rules (no surprise) then Judge Blawie and later Judge Randolph did nothing to impose consequences (again no surprise).

Going back to Family Court and Judge Heller and the Herman Report. Judge Heller actually I thought did a good job (probably my only compliment for how Judge Heller handled anything relative to Dulos v. Dulos btw) putting a framework in place to maintain the confidentiality of the report and kept the report physically in the hands of the involved attorneys with their clients able to view the report and she imposed a log system to track who viewed the report and mandated no copies and no public discussion etc.

As we all know, FD and his attorney at the time Michael Rose and with the assistance of then GAL Atty Meehan somehow managed to get a copy of the report in the hands of FD. Judge Heller was enraged by what happened, had an investigation conducted as to what happened and how and then behind closed doors terminated Atty Michael Rose from her Courtroom, reprimanded FD and imo would have terminated GAL Meehan for his role but for the disappearance/murder of JFD. The investigative report associated with the situation was sealed so is not available for review so far as I am aware but Judge Heller mentioned the investigative report in her discussion of the situation in a motion that is unsealed iirc which is how we became aware of what happened. It was never clear from the available information whether Judge Heller made any effort to retrieve the Herman Report from FD and Atty Michael Rose but around the same time she did have all his computers seized although it wasn't clear if this related to Herman Report OR his lying on the stand yet again about his finances. Its also not clear whether anything was ever done with the seized computers as shortly thereafter JFD went missing as was later discovered to be murdered.

Judge Heller I believe had an obligation to make sure that a released sealed document from her Courtroom was treated as she had originally mandated and YET SHE DID NOTHING to safeguard the report even when it was partially leaked by JLS and Attorney Michael Rose to the Stamford Advocate and then later discussed publicly by JLS with the Press and in various pretrial motions in Criminal Court in the MT matter. IMO all these pretrial motions relating to the report should have been sealed by Judges Blawie and Randolph but weren't. They probably presupposed professional conduct from JLS and Atty Rose and Atty Felson but imo this was a pure 'pipe dream' as all these attorneys used the report in the public domain for years. The States Attorneys (Manning and McGuiness and their Manager in Stamford) choose to do nothing to protect the report or insure that it was handled by JLS and team as was originally mandated by Judge Heller.

I believe that Attorney Bowman nodded 'NO' to MT because he knew that the report from Family Court was sealed. AND YET, MT proceeded to talk about the report not once but many times to LE. She went on to make the comparison between herself and JFD by saying that 'she was healthy' etc. MT made comments about the report not only to LE but she and her family discussed it extensively on social media FOR YEARS and yet not one Judge or the States Attorney's involved did anything to protect the report on behalf of the murdered JFD.

Its imo been shameful to watch this all play out as its involved 3 Judges and at least 6 attorneys along with the Defendant and her family and NOT ONE OF THE SO CALLED OFFICERS OF THE COURT IMO behaved in line with the original guidelines imposed by Judge Heller. Judge Heller has been mute and did zero to protect the report or the confidential information of JFD.

I also question WHY the issue of MT contempt could not have been resolved prior to sentencing? Its unclear why a seeming open/shut case is continued in line with usual delay tactics typical in CT Courts? State's Attorney Office I believe punted the contempt case to a very junior attorney in the Office and now the case seems to be NOWHERE. Par for the course in CT I guess.

MOO

 

[Seattle1]

As we all know, FD and his attorney at the time Michael Rose and with the assistance of then GAL Atty Meehan somehow managed to get a copy of the report in the hands of FD. Judge Heller was enraged by what happened, had an investigation conducted as to what happened and how and then behind closed doors terminated Atty Michael Rose from her Courtroom, reprimanded FD and imo would have terminated GAL Meehan for his role but for the disappearance/murder of JFD. The investigative report associated with the situation was sealed so is not available for review so far as I am aware but Judge Heller mentioned the investigative report in her discussion of the situation in a motion that is unsealed iirc which is how we became aware of what happened. It was never clear from the available information whether Judge Heller made any effort to retrieve the Herman Report from FD and Atty Michael Rose but around the same time she did have all his computers seized although it wasn't clear if this related to Herman Report OR his lying on the stand yet again about his finances. Its also not clear whether anything was ever done with the seized computers as shortly thereafter JFD went missing as was later discovered to be murdered.

^^rsbm

Yes, this is what I recall! But didn't FD (and MT) learn in advance of the Mistrial hearing that the Herman report was being viewed as favorable to FD?

I can't believe that FD would have taken anybody's word for it so who showed FD this report?

Was it Rose, Meehan or NP that allowed FD early access to the report?

Did FD return the report but not before making a copy for himself? This has never been clear to me except that MT has been touting the content of the Report ever since I can remember!

Prior to Jennifer's murder, I believe MT was overjoyed with the content of report deemed favorable to FD, and believed it was her ticket to Jennifer's lifestyle with FD, where FD would have custody of the Dulos children, and FD/MT would live happily ever after-- financed by Jennifer.

And then, after Jennifer's murder -- even better, as this removed the question whether or not Jennifer would or could regain custody of her children, and interrupt the lifestyle MT imagined for herself.

I'm not sure who was presiding over the case when JLS took over as MT's defense team but besides going hard after the Court to remove MT's ankle monitor, I also recall JLS arguing to unseal and/or release a copy of the Herman report, arguing he believed the report contained evidence favorable to his client.

Initially, perhaps JSL was taking a page from NP here that there was no evidence that Jennifer was deceased, and JLS believed the Herman report would help bolster the claim that Jennifer was not deceased, and therefore, impossible for MT to be part of a murder conspiracy.

I think it may have been Judge Blawie who was quick to shut down JLS claim that Jennifer was missing voluntarily, and where it was made crystal clear he wasn't going against another Judge's Order.

I think it was when JLS changed his tactic and argued that his client was interviewed for the Herman report, and the report made reference to his client, and made claim he should be able to view the content to make this determination as her defense counsel, that he gained traction.

However, I could be wrong, but I also thought JLS was granted permission to view only the portions of the report that mentioned MT.

And next thing I know, JLS has the entire report-- but I don't recall how we got here or who was presiding for this decision!

Also, did something happen during the testimony of Rose or another defense witness where the prosecution opened the door for JLS to begin speaking more openly about the Herman report during the trial?

Or did JLS just manipulate the Court here?

Was this something between JLS and MT where MT would testify if JLS was able to get what they deemed were the favorable parts of the Herman report admitted?

This part of the trial is where it got very foggy for me...

But never remind me and the fog-- it was certainly clear to MT that she believed parts of the Herman report should be part of her trial-- even if she had to reveal it herself!

Was this display of the report MT's attempt to cause a Mistrial?

If so, the joke was on her. She ended found guilty on all charges, and ended up with an additional contempt charge to contend with. JMO

 

[Seattle1]

I also question WHY the issue of MT contempt could not have been resolved prior to sentencing? Its unclear why a seeming open/shut case is continued in line with usual delay tactics typical in CT Courts? State's Attorney Office I believe punted the contempt case to a very junior attorney in the Office and now the case seems to be NOWHERE. Par for the course in CT I guess.

^^rsbm

I don't recall a reason offered why the contempt hearing was continued to July. But I do recall a statement by the parties that they hoped to negotiate a resolution on the contempt issue before sentencing. Given the date, are we to assume this did not happen, and the matter will be heard in July? I truly have no idea...

In the March proceeding, Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Moran and defense attorney Robert Frost told Judge Alex Hernandez they would meet prior to the next court date to see whether they could negotiate a resolution to the matter prior to Troconis' sentencing on May 31.

The prosecutor said she had shared the sealed report with Frost, under the instructions he show it to nobody else without a judge’s permission.

 

[Jmoose]

^^rsbm

I don't recall a reason offered why the contempt hearing was continued to July. But I do recall a statement by the parties that they hoped to negotiate a resolution on the contempt issue before sentencing. Given the date, are we to assume this did not happen, and the matter will be heard in July? I truly have no idea...

What would the “negotiated resolution” look like? It seems as if the defense side of things would resemble a complete dropping of the contempt charge, as if MT had done nothing offensive in court. At least, according to MT’s mother on X, the charge should be dropped…

 

[BJarv]

^^rsbm

Yes, this is what I recall! But didn't FD (and MT) learn in advance of the Mistrial hearing that the Herman report was being viewed as favorable to FD?

I can't believe that FD would have taken anybody's word for it so who showed FD this report?

Was it Rose, Meehan or NP that allowed FD early access to the report?

Did FD return the report but not before making a copy for himself? This has never been clear to me except that MT has been touting the content of the Report ever since I can remember!

Prior to Jennifer's murder, I believe MT was overjoyed with the content of report deemed favorable to FD, and believed it was her ticket to Jennifer's lifestyle with FD, where FD would have custody of the Dulos children, and FD/MT would live happily ever after-- financed by Jennifer.

And then, after Jennifer's murder -- even better, as this removed the question whether or not Jennifer would or could regain custody of her children, and interrupt the lifestyle MT imagined for herself.

I'm not sure who was presiding over the case when JLS took over as MT's defense team but besides going hard after the Court to remove MT's ankle monitor, I also recall JLS arguing to unseal and/or release a copy of the Herman report, arguing he believed the report contained evidence favorable to his client.

Initially, perhaps JSL was taking a page from NP here that there was no evidence that Jennifer was deceased, and JLS believed the Herman report would help bolster the claim that Jennifer was not deceased, and therefore, impossible for MT to be part of a murder conspiracy.

I think it may have been Judge Blawie who was quick to shut down JLS claim that Jennifer was missing voluntarily, and where it was made crystal clear he wasn't going against another Judge's Order.

I think it was when JLS changed his tactic and argued that his client was interviewed for the Herman report, and the report made reference to his client, and made claim he should be able to view the content to make this determination as her defense counsel, that he gained traction.

However, I could be wrong, but I also thought JLS was granted permission to view only the portions of the report that mentioned MT.

And next thing I know, JLS has the entire report-- but I don't recall how we got here or who was presiding for this decision!

Also, did something happen during the testimony of Rose or another defense witness where the prosecution opened the door for JLS to begin speaking more openly about the Herman report during the trial?

Or did JLS just manipulate the Court here?

Was this something between JLS and MT where MT would testify if JLS was able to get what they deemed were the favorable parts of the Herman report admitted?

This part of the trial is where it got very foggy for me...

But never remind me and the fog-- it was certainly clear to MT that she believed parts of the Herman report should be part of her trial-- even if she had to reveal it herself!

Was this display of the report MT's attempt to cause a Mistrial?

If so, the joke was on her. She ended found guilty on all charges, and ended up with an additional contempt charge to contend with. JMO

But didn't FD (and MT) learn in advance of the Mistrial hearing that the Herman report was being viewed as favorable to FD? YES, THEY BOTH KNEW OF THE MISTRIAL BUT FWIW THE CHARACTERIZATION OF REPORT AS BEING FAVOURABLE TO FD WAS IMO THAT OF FD AND MT. THE PUBLIC NEVER SAW THE REPORT, JUDGE HELLER SO FAR AS I KNOW NEVER CHARACTERIZED THE REPORT ON THE RECORD AND OTHER THAN FILING A MOTION TO HAVE THE REPORT REMOVED FROM THE RECORD I CANNOT RECALL READING A FAMILY COURT MOTION ON THE TOPIC AS I BELIEVE THEY WERE ALL SEALED. FWIW I BELIEVE NP EITHER HAD THE REPORT OR READ THE REPORT THAT FD HAD A COPY OF AND SO WE SAW PATTIS IN THE PRESS CREATING THE 'GONE GIRL' FICTION ETC. WHICH IMO WAS SHAMEFUL AND QUITE DAMAGED THE JURY POOL.

I can't believe that FD would have taken anybody's word for it so who showed FD this report? FD WAS ALLOWED TO VIEW THE REPORT UNDER THE RULES SET FORTH BY JUDGE HELLER. THE WAY I RECALL IT PLAYING OUT WAS THAT FD AND IMO CORRUPT ATTORNEY MICHAEL ROSE WENT TO THE OFFICE OF GAL ATTY MEEHAN TO VIEW THE REPORT AS PER JUDGE HELLER RULES. SOMEHOW DURING THIS VISIT A COPY OF THE REPORT WAS MADE AND RETAINED BY FD. WE DON'T KNOW THE FORM OF THE COPY WHETHER IT WAS PHONE PHOTOS OR PHOTOCOPY BUT JUDGE HELLER HAD THE ENTIRE SITUATION INVESTIGATED. JUDGE HELLER HAD AN INVESTIGATION DONE TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED BUT THIS INVESTIGATION REPORT SO FAR AS I KNOW IS SEALED OR HELD BY JUDGE HELLER AS I NEVER SAW IT ON THE FAMILY COURT RECORD. SO, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHICH (OR BOTH) ATTORNEY FACILITATED MAKING A COPY OF THE REPORT BUT IMO GIVEN THAT JUDGE HELLER DISMISSED ATTY MICHAEL ROSE FROM HER COURT I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. BUT, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, JUDGE HELLER WAS DISPLEASED AND ANGRY AT GAL MEEHAN AND JFD ATTY HAD FILED TO HAVE GAL MEEHAN DISMISSED SHORTLY BEFORE JFD WAS MURDERED AND SO I TOOK HIS MOTION TO DISMISS GAL AS SUPPORTING THE THEORY THAT GAL PLAYED A ROLE IN GETTING COPY OF REPORT FOR FD. GAL WAS CERTAINLY BIASED TOWARDS FD IT SEEMS AND PERHAPS THIS WAS ANOTHER REASON THAT JFD HAD THE MOTION FILED TO DISMISS THE GAL. BUT, THERE WERE SO MANY ISSUES SWIRLING AROUND THE GAL AT THAT TIME REGARDING THE CHILDREN THAT I'D BET THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE GAL WAS MULTI FACTORED. AGAIN, ALL SPECULATION ON MY PART BASED ON CONNECTING THE DOTS IN INFORMATION THAT WAS VISIBLE AND ON THE RECORD.

Was it Rose, Meehan or NP that allowed FD early access to the report? IMO IT WAS ROSE AND MEEHAN AS NP ENTERED THE PICTURE MUCH LATER AFTER THE MURDER AND MY GUESS IS HAD ACCESS TO THE REPORT VIA FD AS IIRC THE REPORT COPY WAS SIEZED AT 4JX BY CSP. MY FURTHER GUESS IS THAT NP BEING NP (MY GUESS IS THAT HE VERY MUCH WANTED TO WRITE A BOOK OR SCREENPLAY ABOUT THIS TRAGEDY BUT WAS STOPPED BY THE GF LITIGATION THAT GAGGED HIM) IS THAT HE KEPT HIS OWN COPY. SADLY SO FAR AS I KNOW THE STATE NEVER PURSUED A CASE AGAINST NP TO SEE IF HE RETAINED A COPY EITHER IN HARD COPY OR DIGITAL FORM.

Did FD return the report but not before making a copy for himself? This has never been clear to me except that MT has been touting the content of the Report ever since I can remember! NO, I DON'T THINK FD RETURNED A REPORT AS A COPY WAS FOUND AT 4JX BY CSP. BUT, AS THE JUDGE HELLER REPORT WAS SEALED WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY COPIES MIGHT HAVE BEEN FLOATING AROUND. WE DO NOW KNOW THAT ITS PROBABLE THAT NP HAD A COPY, SCHOENHORN HAD A COPY, ATTY ROSE MIGHT HAVE HAD A COPY AND THE STATE'S ATTORNEYS ALL HAD A COPY. SO, LOTS OF COPIES STILL FLOATING AROUND SO FAR AS I CAN TELL AS I STRONGLY DOUBT THEY HAVE BEEN GATHERED UP BY THE STATE AND RETURNED TO WHERE THEY BELONG WHICH IS FAMILY COURT AND IN SEALED FORM.

Prior to Jennifer's murder, I believe MT was overjoyed with the content of report deemed favorable to FD, and believed it was her ticket to Jennifer's lifestyle with FD, where FD would have custody of the Dulos children, and FD/MT would live happily ever after-- financed by Jennifer. IDK AT WHAT POINT MT MIGHT HAVE READ THE REPORT OR IF IN THE EARLY DAYS THE INFO FLOW FROM THE REPORT WAS MANAGED BY CONTROLLING NARC/PSYCHOPATH FD? WE DO KNOW THAT MT ALLEGEDLY HAD INFO FROM THE REPORT WHICH SHE REPEATED TO LE IN HER INTERVIEWS. WE AS THE PUBLIC DONT KNOW IF WHAT SHE REPORTED WAS FROM THE REPORT OR A FICTION OF FD TO KEEP MT FROM LEAVING FOR CO? IT DOES SEEM THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME MT DID HAVE ACCESS TO THE REPORT OR AT LEAST PARTS OF THE REPORT AS SHE TALKED EXTENSIVELY OF COMPILING A LIST OF ISSUES TO DISCUSS WITH THE PSYCHOLOGIST WHEN SHE AND FD WENT TO MEET WITH HIM. THIS EVENT IMO WAS FARCICAL AS THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE HISTORY TO SUGGEST THAT MT OUGHT TO BE AFRAID OF JFD. SO, I JUST WONDERED IF THIS WAS YET ANOTHER OF THE PSYCH MIND GAMES THAT FD AND MT HAD BEEN PLAYING OVER THE YEARS TO TORTURE AND TORMENT JFD? WE SHALL NEVER KNOW AS THEY CHOSE TO MURDER JFD RATHER THAN CONTINUE TO PURSUE THE CUSTODY AND DIVORCE CASE WHICH IMO WAS QUITE TELLING AS TO HOW THE CASE WAS CLEARLY FAVOURING JFD AT THE TIME OF HER MURDER VS FD. JUDGE HELLER WAS FIXATED ON MOVING THE CASE TO RESOLUTION AT THE TIME OF JFD MURDER AND WAS HAMMERING FD YET AGAIN ON HIS FINANCES AS HE HAD YET AGAIN LIED ON THE RECORD ABOUT THEM (CORRUPT ATTORNEY MICHAEL ROSE WAS THE ONE WHO SUBMITTED THESE FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW AND IMO THIS WAS YET ANOTHER REASON THAT JUDGE HELLER DISMISSED HIM AS HE COULDN'T BE TRUSTED TO DO HIS JOB WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RULES OF THE COURT IT APPEARED).

And then, after Jennifer's murder -- even better, as this removed the question whether or not Jennifer would or could regain custody of her children, and interrupt the lifestyle MT imagined for herself. SADLY YES I BELIEVE YOU ARE RIGHT HERE. BUT, MT HAD TO HAVE KNOWN THAT FD FINANCES WERE IN SHAMBLES AS MY GUESS IS THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE THE FUNDS TO CONTINUE THE DIVORCE ACTION AND I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT FD/MT WERE STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THAT MONEY WOULD RAIN DOWN ON THEM QUICKLY FROM THE TRUST OF JFD OR HER CHILDREN? THIS IS ALSO WHAT TROUBLED ME ABOUT THE 'MURDERS EVE' DINNER PERFORMANCE OF FD AND MT AS THEY KNEW OF THE MISTRIAL AND THE TOSSING OF THE HERMAN REPORT BY JUDGE HELLER. YET, THEY BEHAVED AS IF 'ALL WAS GOOD AND ALL WERE HAPPY'. IT ALL SEEMED SO CONTRIVED AS WELL AS PROFOUNDLY EVIL! I'M GLAD THAT THE DEFENCE IN THEIR STUPIDITY AND TONE DEAFNESS BROUGHT THE 'MURDERS EVE' DINNER TO THE FORE (NO PUN INTENDED!) FOR THE JURY AS IT MADE THE PICTURE CRYSTAL CLEAR IMO AS TO THE MONSTERS THAT FD, MT AND THE MT FAMILY ALL WERE (DITTO FOR THE DINNER GUESTS THAT REMINDED ME OF THE THREE MONKEYS 'HEAR, SEE AND SAY NO EVIL')! WHAT A CREW OF EVIL PEOPLE IMO.

I'm not sure who was presiding over the case when JLS took over as MT's defense team but besides going hard after the Court to remove MT's ankle monitor, I also recall JLS arguing to unseal and/or release a copy of the Herman report, arguing he believed the report contained evidence favorable to his client. IIRC IT WAS MAINLY JUDGE BLAWIE BUT JUDGE WHITE ALSO HANDLED SOME OF THE PRETRIAL MOTION MADNESS FROM SCHOENHORN IIRC.

Initially, perhaps JSL was taking a page from NP here that there was no evidence that Jennifer was deceased, and JLS believed the Herman report would help bolster the claim that Jennifer was not deceased, and therefore, impossible for MT to be part of a murder conspiracy. WHATEVER WAS IN THE REPORT MY GUESS IS THAT NP WITH HIS OVERLY DEVELOPED IMAGINATION AND PROPENSITY FOR THE CREATION OF FICTION THEN RAN WITH IT TO CREATE THE 'GONE GIRL' FANTASY STORY. I CAN'T RECONCILE THE NP 'GONE GIRL' FICTION WITH JLS CLAIM THAT JFD WAS NOT DECEASED. I NEVER UNDERSTAND ON WHAT BASIS JLS CLAIMED JFD WAS NOT DECEASED AS IT MADE NO SENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BLOOD EVIDENCE IN THE GARAGE AND ELSEWHERE? I ONLY SURMISED THAT JLS THOUGHT HE COULD GET AWAY WITH HIS CLAIM THAT JFD WAS STILL ALIVE AS THERE WAS NO BODY BUT WE SAW AT TRIAL THAT HE HAD TO BACK PEDAL QUICKLY ON THIS AND THE JURY CONVICTED WITH NO ME TESTIMONY AND NO BODY AND SO I THINK THAT CLEARLY SAYS THE JFD POSITION WAS ILL CONCEIVED AND FRANKLY STUPID FROM THE BEGINNING. JMO.

I think it may have been Judge Blawie who was quick to shut down JLS claim that Jennifer was missing voluntarily, and where it was made crystal clear he wasn't going against another Judge's Order. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT PERIOD AGAIN AS I FRANKLY DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS JUDGE WHITE OR JUDGE BLAWIE THAT DID THIS. BUT, IT WAS JUDGE BLAWIE THAT GAVE THE HERMAN REPORT TO JLS RATHER THAN TAKING THE REPORT AWAY FROM CSP OR THE STATES ATTORNEY. FWIW HIS LOGIC ON THIS ENTIRE SITUATION WAS ABOVE MY PAYGRADE AS I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY HE SIMPLY DIDN'T REMOVE THE REPORT BACK TO JUDGE HELLER AND THEN HAVE THE PARTIES ARGUE IN MOTIONS FOR ITS RETURN TO THE CRIMINAL CASE. INSTEAD, HE LEFT THE REPORT WITH THE STATE AND GAVE A COPY TO JLS AND THE SHITSHOW SURROUNDING THE REPORT CONTINUED FOR NEARLY 3 YEARS WHERE JLS AND MT SPOKE OF THE REPORT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAINE AND JLS NEVER SEALED ONE OF HIS MOTIONS RELATING TO THE REPORT EITHER WHICH WAS SOMETHING THAT JUDGES IMO SHOULD HAVE SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY BUT THEY NEVER DID.

I think it was when JLS changed his tactic and argued that his client was interviewed for the Herman report, and the report made reference to his client, and made claim he should be able to view the content to make this determination as her defense counsel, that he gained traction. YES, HE MENTIONED MT BEING INTERVIEWED BUT THE BIG ISSUE I THINK THAT WON THE MOTION WAS THAT HE ARGUED THAT CSP GAVE A COPY OF THE REPORT TO THE STATE AND SO HE OUGHT TO HAVE A COPY TOO.

However, I could be wrong, but I also thought JLS was granted permission to view only the portions of the report that mentioned MT. IDK, THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN EARLY RESULT BUT I DON'T RECALL IT. HE DID EVENTUALLY GET THE FULL REPORT. WE DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HOW HE SAFEGUARDED THE REPORT, IF HE COMPLIED WITH JUDGE HELLER GUIDELINES FOR THE REPORT, WHETHER HE COPIED IT AND SHARED IT WITH MT AND HER MOTHER AND DITTO FOR ATTORNEY AUDREY FELSON WHO HAD EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REPORT BASED ON HER IN COURT EXAMINATION OF ATTYS MEEHAN AND ROSE. WE ALSO DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE COPIES OF THE REPORT (DIGITAL OR OTHERWISE) WERE RETURNED TO FAMILY COURT AS IT APPEARS NEITHER JUDGE BLAWIE OR JUDGE RANDOLPH DID ANYTHING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REPORT WAS SAFEGUARDED AS IT BECAME CLEAR IMO SEEING BOTH JLS AND MT AND HER FAMILY SPEAK OF THE REPORT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAINE THAT THE JUDGES DIDN'T CARE MUCH ABOUT THE HANDLING OF THE REPORT.

And next thing I know, JLS has the entire report-- but I don't recall how we got here or who was presiding for this decision! HE ARGUED THAT HE DESERVED IT BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE STATE HAD A COPY THAT THEY RECEIVED FROM CSP RAID OF 4JX.

Also, did something happen during the testimony of Rose or another defense witness where the prosecution opened the door for JLS to begin speaking more openly about the Herman report during the trial? NO, I DON'T THINK SO AS STATE WAS BEYOND CAREFUL TO NOT OPEN THE DOOR. JUDGE RANDOLPH WAS ENRAGED BY ATTY AUDREY FELSON CROSSES OF ATTY MEEHAN AND ROSE WHEN HE EVENTUALLY HAD HAD ENOUGH AND ACCUSED HER OF 'CROSSING A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE' IN FRONT OF THE JURY. THAT BEING SAID, HE DIDN'T SHUT DOWN HER ONGOING REFERENCES TO THE REPORT EITHER AS FRANKLY I DON'T THINK SHE ADJUSTED HER COURTROOM BEHAVIOUR AT ALL EVEN FOLLOWING THE JUDGE ADMONISHMENT. JMO.

Or did JLS just manipulate the Court here? YEP, COMPLETE MANIPULATION AS YOU POINT OUT. ITS ALL QUITE A FARCE AS NOBODY IN THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN THE REPORT AND SO JLS AND MT AND FAMILY CREATED AN ENTIRE NARRATIVE AROUND A DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE NO WAY OF FACT CHECKING. FRANKLY I THINK WE SHOULD CALL IT THE 'JLS REPORT' RATHER THAN THE 'HERMAN REPORT' AS IMO THEIR NARRATIVE IS MOST LIKELY A COMPLETE FICTION THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FACT CHECK.

Was this something between JLS and MT where MT would testify if JLS was able to get what they deemed were the favorable parts of the Herman report admitted? IMO IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW. BUT, I THINK EVEN A MORON LIKE JLS KNEW THAT MT COULD NEVER HIT THE STAND AFTER THE LE INTERVIEWS REMAINED IN THE TRIAL. PERHAPS IF THE LE INTERVIEWS HAD BEEN KICKED OUT (LIKE HER PHONE) THEN MAYBE SHE COULD HIT THE STAND BUT HONESTLY I THINK EVEN JLS KNEW THAT MT AND HER MOTHER FOR THAT MATTER WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE MINCEMEAT OF ON THE STAND.

This part of the trial is where it got very foggy for me...YES, 'UP IN SMOKE PERIOD'! BUT, ITS SAD THAT THE JUDGES ALLOWED THE DEFENCE TO REFER TO A REPORT IN A WAY TO CHARACTERIZE ITS CONTENTS TO THE PUBLIC AND JURY WHEN THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE REPORT COULD BE DISCUSSED ON THE RECORD FOR THE JURY TO EXAMINE. IM NOT SAYING THIS TO ARGUE THAT THE REPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM SEAL BUT I JUST THINK ITS WRONG THAT THE REPORT GAINED A 'HALF IN AND HALF OUT' STATUS THAT WAS EFFECTIVELY CRAFTED BY THE DEFENCE TO MOST LIKELY BE SOMETHING IT WASN'T AND THE JURY WAS LEFT NOT KNOWING WHAT TO BELIEVE. I DO THINK THOUGH THAT THE JURY CLEARLY DIDN'T BELIEVE THE DEFENCE AS JLS DIDN'T SEEM TO CREATE A BOND WITH THE JURY AND FURTHER HE NEVER REALLY PUT FORWARD ANY DEFENCE OF MT BEYOND FIRST THAT JFD WAS STILL ALIVE AND THAT MT HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT HAPPENED TO JFD ETC. THERE WAS ZERO SUBSTANCE TO THE DEFENCE IMO AND I BELIEVE THE JURY UNDERSTOOD THIS SHORTCOMING IN VERY SHORT ORDER!

But never remind me and the fog-- it was certainly clear to MT that she believed parts of the Herman report should be part of her trial-- even if she had to reveal it herself! SADLY IMO ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW AS SHE COULD SAY AND BELIEVE ANYTHING AND WE COULDNT KNOW THE TRUTH AS WE NEVER SAW THE REPORT. I THINK THAT MT BELIEVES AND SAYS WHAT SHE WANTS TO SAY ALWAYS AND TRUTH HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH ANYTHING IN HER LIFE. WE SAW HER IN THE LE INTERVIEWS 'LIE ABOUT LIES' OVER AND OVER AND FRANKLY I THINK IF YOU OPEN UP THE LATEST DSM TO EXPLORE 'PATHOLOGICAL LYING' THAT YOU JUST MIGHT SEE A PHOTO OF MT AND FD!

Was this display of the report MT's attempt to cause a Mistrial? YES, I BELIEVE SO AND I ALSO SPECULATE THAT SHE DID IT WITH THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF HER MOTHER (WHY MOM COULD NEVER TESTIFY AS WAS ORIGINALLY SUPPOSEDLY THE DEFENCE PLAN) AND HER TWO ATTORNEYS.

If so, the joke was on her. She ended found guilty on all charges, and ended up with an additional contempt charge to contend with. JMO AGREE. BUT I DO THINK THE ENTIRE WAY THE JUDGES HANDLED THE REPORT FROM DAY 1 WAS WRONG AND I VERY MUCH HOLD JUDGE HELLER RESPONSIBLE AS SHE COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO WORK WITH JUDGES BLAWIE, WHITE AND RANDOLPH REGARDING THE REPORT IN THE EARLY DAYS OF PRETRIAL BUT HID UNDER HER DESK AND DID ZERO THAT I COULD EVER FIND ON THE RECORD.


MOO