GUILTY CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #71

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Another thing--Did MT actually increase the font size or did she zoom the report? If she changed the font size, I think she'd need editing software to do that to a pdf? And if she "altered" a document that could have been evidence in a public hearing, that could have been a violation of CT criminal statute Sec. 53a-155-- a felony. MOO

In lawyer Lee's YT, it's apparent that MT is zooming her screen and did not edit the document.

I also agree that the State probably did not secure a search warrant to MT's computer for a couple of reasons including that this would have only delayed the entire contempt of court situation, but it probably wasn't likely that a search warrant for the computer MT was using at her murder trial would be granted (client-attorney protected info).

Fortunately, this soon became a non-issue after Gioielli was able to view Law & Crime's broadcast on 2/28/24 which captured a corner of MT's screen where sufficient text was available on the screen to identify partial sentences mirroring the language and punctuation from page 50 of the subject sealed report. (See para 20 of PCA dtd 3-1-24). For the Court's purpose, they only needed evidence that MT had possession of a report that was Ordered sealed from the public including herself. MOO
 
Who's leaning on Judge Hernandez to push for a settlement--so the contempt charge will go away? And why aren't there any journalists (or bloggers) in CT who take notice of such things?
I went on Law & Crime and searched for anything about Troconis and the contempt charge. The box said "nothing". Tho' there's plenty about Troconis's trial. So maybe L&C doesn't want to host discussions about the contempt charge because MT has pointed her finger at their videographer for capturing her mischief?

At a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment and $500 fine, this contempt charge is very low priority here.

The Sept 16 contempt hearing was very brief, and similar to the arraignment on the charge, her defense said they believed a resolution was in the works.

They were more interested in talking about her petition for Habeas Corpus involving the first attorney in her case, Andrew Bowman.

The decision on a resolution or trial for the contempt charge is still up in the air, but Troconis is due back in court November 13, at which time, attorneys seemed confident a decision could be ready.


 
At a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment and $500 fine, this contempt charge is very low priority here.

The Sept 16 contempt hearing was very brief, and similar to the arraignment on the charge, her defense said they believed a resolution was in the works.

They were more interested in talking about her petition for Habeas Corpus involving the first attorney in her case, Andrew Bowman.

The decision on a resolution or trial for the contempt charge is still up in the air, but Troconis is due back in court November 13, at which time, attorneys seemed confident a decision could be ready.



The family and the felon are so crazy focused on exposing this verified false psych report of the victim which seems to be a neurotic obsession to stay on track to say “hey, look at the victim” and not the felon’s life’s behavior. The felon is far from “healthy” as far as I’m concerned, considering the small amount of behavior that we’ve been privy to dating back to her child hood to the present. She has a very long history of poor choices that many of us here have discussed. IMO she has a long history of “unhealthy” behaviors that resulted in her incarceration. To name a few observations:

Let’s begin with, why would her parents send her 1/2 way across the country from Caracas to upstate New York to an emotional therapy horse farm as a teen? Was there an issue that the family couldn’t resolve in their own hometown or country? Speaks volumes to the extent of the teen crisis MT was causing in the family. I’d be shocked to learn that there were no emotional therapy horse farms in Venezuela at the time. Many horses live in Venezuela, yet another country two thousand plus miles away was more appealing.
It appears she had a few esoteric jobs, had a daughter, yet seemed to always be on a quest to find a man to support her, so once she finally married one, her husband refused to pay for another man’s child, so she was forced to share with her daughters father that he actually HAD a daughter. Her daughter was six years old. This poor girl was taught that it’s okay to break up a marriage, live with a married man and lie to adults (Jennifer) and officials of the court. Sadly, when given the opportunity, this young lady didn’t even apologize to the court and/or Jennifer’s children when she spoke at the close of the trial.
MT was quite comfortable exposing her affair with a local married man in the family hometown of Farmington by flaunting her relationship with Fotis in local restaurants, ski clubs, visiting Jennifer’s children’s schools, moving into the family home and posing for a very provocative highly visible framed and strategically hung photo for display. When required by the court to move out of the family home owned by the Farber’s, she didn’t even own a car or a suitcase. Grifter.
Lastly, as we all recently witnessed, MT knowingly disrespected a sealed document order. She was well aware that it was sealed and yet she blatantly displayed it in very large print so most everyone in the gallery could view it.

Her bold, disrespectful and deceiptful behavior is far beyond “healthy” and is a testament to her involvement in the demise of beautiful Jennifer and her orphaned children. IMO, she wasn’t hoodwinked by Fotis Dulos by any means. She was front and center and quite focused on resolving her needs by any means and in serving her needs, the family was thinking it resolved their angst of a daughter/sister. I hope the court holds her responsible for this final act (contempt) and I also wish that the State of Connecticut would move on Kent Mawhinney’s case. He might add some light to some of the missing pieces of the puzzle.
 
Lastly, as we all recently witnessed, MT knowingly disrespected a sealed document order. She was well aware that it was sealed and yet she blatantly displayed it in very large print so most everyone in the gallery could view it.
^^rsbm

I think MT represents an enabled, adult who has never been held responsible for her actions, and long encouraged to blame others for her ill deeds. And then we had to witness her extended family surface, only to do the same-- make excuses for MT and pile on the blame against even the witnesses. Just don't name MT!

IMO, I think MT and the Troconis' joint obsession with exposing the sealed report was a desperate attempt to sell this fantasy that Fd was going to receive custody of the Dulos children, and therefore, he had no reason to disappear JFd, removing MT as a suspect, as if by default, What conspiracy? MT and Fd were on there way to fulfilling one happily ever after life together with their blended family (where MT impersonates JFd).

But in their combination of arrogance and ignorance, they completely ignored that the Herman report was nowhere near the end of the story! First, who here can forget the man crush the author had on Fd?! Second, the idea the killer couple would underestimate the yet to be discovered expert witness by JFd, who would obviously challenge Herman and his finding in court, is especially noteworthy on its own-- especially knowing the author walked out of family Court during his initial testimony, not only forcing a mistrial, but also causing the Court to seal the report to begin with. MOO
 
Last edited:
FWIW I don't think MT had a physical or electronic copy. I do think she did at one time and showed it to Mama T and to her BFF Petu (that secret evidence). Possibly it's part of what she was burning. Alibi script brain trusts, they probably had a written strategy for the days leading up to and day of the murder so each of them knew exactly what to do and when to do, including the long game strategy to break JFd, in the hopes of forcing her to retreat. FD wanted custody. Why? Twofold. Three. To hurt JFd. To avoid child support. To GET child support. Toward this end, he was ruthless.

And when it was clear to him, it wasn't going to happen, with his petulant girlfriend making demands of her own, they conspired to murder JFd, speeding up the process to achieve all three -- ultimate hurt, no child support, direct access to Farber money. Utterly vile.

MT was probably burning whatever she could find to make sure their copious notes were pulverized. Oops, she missed one, the xeroxed copy of the report, which LE collected when they searched the home. Michi, you had ONE job.

All their planning, truly demonic. The murder's eve dinner? How those friends aren't ILL for being USED by FD.

FD botched that too. Was to be one couple iirc, the other couple, a surprise to him and MT both, a rescheduled event that slipped FD's slippery mind. Suddenly a full dinner party foist on MT who was NOT the socialite she pretended to be. All the while FD was finalizing his plan for the morning. One last meet up with KM, some last minute vehicle shuffling (caught jogging back to his dinner party), all while sporting his suddenly shaved head.

He came with zip ties. It's always been my contention that he planned to abduct JFd, take her from Welles alive. Throw on a baseball cap and drive out of her garage as her before swapping out vehicles at Waveny. I've not ruled out a third vehicle here as I don't think he intended to transport his bound victim in the Tacoma.

He wasn't winning in family court. He was going broke. Michi was impatient, demanding, goading.

Disgusting, what those two -- and KM -- conspired to do and carried out.

She remains shameless.

Active party to murder, she puts a sealed document on blast in a live-streamed courtroom, mere feet from the judge and jury, trying her for that (conspiracy to) murder. That's unbridled.

See her for what she is.

JMO
 
In lawyer Lee's YT, it's apparent that MT is zooming her screen and did not edit the document.

I also agree that the State probably did not secure a search warrant to MT's computer for a couple of reasons including that this would have only delayed the entire contempt of court situation, but it probably wasn't likely that a search warrant for the computer MT was using at her murder trial would be granted (client-attorney protected info).

Fortunately, this soon became a non-issue after Gioielli was able to view Law & Crime's broadcast on 2/28/24 which captured a corner of MT's screen where sufficient text was available on the screen to identify partial sentences mirroring the language and punctuation from page 50 of the subject sealed report. (See para 20 of PCA dtd 3-1-24). For the Court's purpose, they only needed evidence that MT had possession of a report that was Ordered sealed from the public including herself. MOO
I've wondered whether it was her personal laptop, with other things on it, or whether it was a special laptop only for use for the trial.
 
But why would he send it to her computer, when he could've just run it off on his office copying machine and handed it to her? And didn't LE take her computer from the house? I seem to remember that Mami T was objecting when they wanted to take her computer too?
Yes, quite true….. but one would only need a scanner to create either a pdf format or some other form? Even an image of it that could be converted.

IANAL…. so wish one would weigh in….. on that point about possible attorney client privilege. IDK, but that IMO seems perhaps a bit of an excuse to me? And as noted in other posts up thread…… the defendant didn’t seem much concerned about it in open court. MOO
 
At a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment and $500 fine, this contempt charge is very low priority here.

The Sept 16 contempt hearing was very brief, and similar to the arraignment on the charge, her defense said they believed a resolution was in the works.

They were more interested in talking about her petition for Habeas Corpus involving the first attorney in her case, Andrew Bowman.

The decision on a resolution or trial for the contempt charge is still up in the air, but Troconis is due back in court November 13, at which time, attorneys seemed confident a decision could be ready.


From the article--emphasis added by me re trial:
"Attorneys indicated a resolution to the charge could be in sight.

“If not, we will be able to schedule it either for a hearing or a trial possibly at that point,” said the state's attorney.'"
 
Yes, quite true….. but one would only need a scanner to create either a pdf format or some other form? Even an image of it that could be converted.

IANAL…. so wish one would weigh in….. on that point about possible attorney client privilege. IDK, but that IMO seems perhaps a bit of an excuse to me? And as noted in other posts up thread…… the defendant didn’t seem much concerned about it in open court. MOO
On the computers the parties use at trial, do they have internet access?
 
Yes, quite true….. but one would only need a scanner to create either a pdf format or some other form? Even an image of it that could be converted.

IANAL…. so wish one would weigh in….. on that point about possible attorney client privilege. IDK, but that IMO seems perhaps a bit of an excuse to me? And as noted in other posts up thread…… the defendant didn’t seem much concerned about it in open court. MOO
Jumping back off my earlier post to add…..

And if the CT courts really want to investigate this - and are truly concerned with so called privileged documents - why not simply bring in an independent document examiner? Wasn’t that done IIRC in the Barry Morphew / civil case or murder case of Suzanne Morphew case? Isn’t that a common practice? Sometimes even IIRC a Special Master might be brought in to examine evidence and assist the case.

IMO the so called excuse of the privilege seems confusing at best. SMH. IANAL. MOO
 
From the article--emphasis added by me re trial:
"Attorneys indicated a resolution to the charge could be in sight.

“If not, we will be able to schedule it either for a hearing or a trial possibly at that point,” said the state's attorney.'"

Yes, confident in the decision -- one way or another (hearing or trial), that MT will get a slap on the hand, and deprived of granola at Thanksgiving dinner.... MOO
 
Jumping back off my earlier post to add…..

And if the CT courts really want to investigate this - and are truly concerned with so called privileged documents - why not simply bring in an independent document examiner? Wasn’t that done IIRC in the Barry Morphew / civil case or murder case of Suzanne Morphew case? Isn’t that a common practice? Sometimes even IIRC a Special Master might be brought in to examine evidence and assist the case.

IMO the so called excuse of the privilege seems confusing at best. SMH. IANAL. MOO
Article above tells about tracing a document by secret code left by some printers. Now, if they could get the copy of the report that was scanned to get it on her computer...
Also, I wonder who made the copy of the report that was given to Horn per Judge Blawie's order, and was that person told not to read it?
 
Jumping back off my earlier post to add…..

And if the CT courts really want to investigate this - and are truly concerned with so called privileged documents - why not simply bring in an independent document examiner? Wasn’t that done IIRC in the Barry Morphew / civil case or murder case of Suzanne Morphew case? Isn’t that a common practice? Sometimes even IIRC a Special Master might be brought in to examine evidence and assist the case.

IMO the so called excuse of the privilege seems confusing at best. SMH. IANAL. MOO

Not the Morphew case that I recall, and I've been on the criminal and civil case from day one.

IMO, it's not contested the document MT displayed at her trial on 2/15/24 was from the sealed family court report, and no need to scrub MT's computer as they secured sufficient evidence necessary to charge MT with contempt of court charges from Law and Crime broadcast.

Going for a search warrant would have likely failed probable cause here -- likening this to demanding I replace your car because I merely scratched your bumper (i.e., probative value of evidence was not greater than prejudicial effect and/or violation of defendant's constitutional right to protect client attorney privilege).

CT clearly has had no interest in how the Herman authored report surfaced at the residence shared by Fd & MT years ago when CSP first located a copy inside the very house MT once occupied, and they never investigated the incident back then.

In other words, it was just as illegal to possess the report then as it was on Feb 15, so any sudden interest in forensically tracing how MT sourced the same report would just seem punitive, when it's not necessary to convict her of contempt. JMO
 
HELP KEEP WEBSLEUTHS AD FREE.
Isn't it great that you don't have to see those obnoxious ads on Websleuths anymore?
However, to keep Websleuths ad-free, we need your help. Please sign up to make a monthly donation to DNA Solves.com
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR A MONTHLY DONATION TO DNA SOLVES
By subscribing and making a monthly donation, you will be helping the families finally get the answers they deserve.
The amazing people at DNA Solves/Othram care deeply about finding the families of the unidentified.
Even 5 dollars a month would go a long way to finding the families of the unidentified.
Please do not discuss this on this thread. CLICK HERE if you would like to discuss further or have any questions.
Thank you,
Tricia Griffith
Manager/Websleuths.com
 
Not the Morphew case that I recall, and I've been on the criminal and civil case from day one.

IMO, it's not contested the document MT displayed at her trial on 2/15/24 was from the sealed family court report, and no need to scrub MT's computer as they secured sufficient evidence necessary to charge MT with contempt of court charges from Law and Crime broadcast.

Going for a search warrant would have likely failed probable cause here -- likening this to demanding I replace your car because I merely scratched your bumper (i.e., probative value of evidence was not greater than prejudicial effect and/or violation of defendant's constitutional right to protect client attorney privilege).

CT clearly has had no interest in how the Herman authored report surfaced at the residence shared by Fd & MT years ago when CSP first located a copy inside the very house MT once occupied, and they never investigated the incident back then.

In other words, it was just as illegal to possess the report then as it was on Feb 15, so any sudden interest in forensically tracing how MT sourced the same report would just seem punitive, when it's not necessary to convict her of contempt. JMO
When LE found the report at FD's house, the only "contempt of court" issue, I suppose, was whether the GAL improperly gave out a copy. It wouldn't have been LE's duty to report that. Displaying the report during a trial is quite a different thing. The issue in this discussion is whether either of MT's attorneys were involved. They were "commissioners of the Superior Court". And there is no attorney-client privilege when the attorney conspires with the client to do something unlawful. AF told the court she had only ever seen about 3 pages of the hard copy and hadn't ever seen it on the computer (despite the greatly magnified image right beside her.) Does the court just take her at her word? The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge deal with possible attorney misconduct in his/her courtroom.
 
When LE found the report at FD's house, the only "contempt of court" issue, I suppose, was whether the GAL improperly gave out a copy. It wouldn't have been LE's duty to report that. Displaying the report during a trial is quite a different thing. The issue in this discussion is whether either of MT's attorneys were involved. They were "commissioners of the Superior Court". And there is no attorney-client privilege when the attorney conspires with the client to do something unlawful. AF told the court she had only ever seen about 3 pages of the hard copy and hadn't ever seen it on the computer (despite the greatly magnified image right beside her.) Does the court just take her at her word? The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge deal with possible attorney misconduct in his/her courtroom.
Unfortunately, it seems like the court does take her word for it-it seems entirely unlikely to me that she did not know MT had that up on her screen. She was right next to MT, by inches, and considering that MT turned the screen to face the prosecution side of the room, AF was looking right at it. She (AF) would have to be the most unobservant person in the entire world to have not seen it. But the court can’t prove that she saw it, so there you go.
 
When LE found the report at FD's house, the only "contempt of court" issue, I suppose, was whether the GAL improperly gave out a copy. It wouldn't have been LE's duty to report that. Displaying the report during a trial is quite a different thing. The issue in this discussion is whether either of MT's attorneys were involved. They were "commissioners of the Superior Court". And there is no attorney-client privilege when the attorney conspires with the client to do something unlawful. AF told the court she had only ever seen about 3 pages of the hard copy and hadn't ever seen it on the computer (despite the greatly magnified image right beside her.) Does the court just take her at her word? The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge deal with possible attorney misconduct in his/her courtroom.
^^bbm

In this matter, it's on record by both AF and JLS that neither provided MT the sealed Herman Report she was displaying on her computer during her murder trial on 2/15/24.

In the 3/22/24 YT by Attorney Lee posted upthread, the host goes through several exercises to distinguish the difference between the format of the Herman Report and another document MT flashes between on her screen, and where MT actually engages with AF on the latter document, and is seen pointing at her screen, and appears to have AF's attention.

IMO, there's at least an example here to give AF the benefit of the doubt that she wasn't focused on MT's computer unless directed to by MT. Perhaps the Court viewing livestream broadcast and courtroom surveillance believed the same. I'm also not aware that the State Prosecutors have challenged either of MT's attorneys on their word.

I think they were on about day 22 of the murder trial here and had important defense witnesses on the stand while MT was indulging herself, and disrespecting the Court. MOO
 
I think they were on about day 22 of the murder trial here and had important defense witnesses on the stand while MT was indulging herself, and disrespecting the Court.
That's a possibility. But the thing I keep wondering about was:
What was AF telling MT at length not long before the report flashing happened late on that trial day, and that MT was listening to so intently before she began to smile and seem so delighted? If it was a piece of advice she was giving her, AF couldn't have told her at lunch or the last break?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
222
Total visitors
335

Forum statistics

Threads
609,338
Messages
18,252,837
Members
234,628
Latest member
BillK9
Back
Top