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

Discussion in 'Currently Awaiting Trial' started by doodles1211, May 26, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sleuth66

    sleuth66 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    11,436
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Attorney seeks transcript of divorce hearing that occurred days before Jennifer Dulos vanished
    More antics from JS.
    So now he's just a curious member of the public wanting to know what was going on in this "contentious divorce between two rich people."
    Does that just mean that MT isn't paying him to run this sideshow?
    Maybe he's planning on selling a story or script and he needs it for leverage since he doesn't have anything else juicy to offer up- looking to scrape any old used piece of gum off the street to hawk to the highest bidder.
     


  2. Tink56

    Tink56 MOO...IMO

    Messages:
    2,512
    Likes Received:
    23,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If I remember correctly, the divorce proceedings are sealed. JS just likes to make it seem like something relevant to MT's case is being withheld from him...right?!

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

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

    Jmoose Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,554
    Likes Received:
    38,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, sealed-and in what universe would he be entitled to the divorce documents related to the divorce of two people he ISN’T representing? Even if the documents had any mention of his client, it would only be about MT in her role as “paramour” and a person who is not allowed to be present when the children were with their father. If presented in court, it would seem to raise the question: why would his client have purposefully ignored the court’s order that she should not be with fD when his kids were with him, on multiple occasions? I don’t think it would be helpful to MT for JS to attempt to use them in court in her defense.
     
  4. pernickety

    pernickety Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    7,759
    Trophy Points:
    93
    "Be careful what you ask for"--isn't that what they say? Particularly in a legal case.
     
  5. HopeForTheBest

    HopeForTheBest Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,259
    Likes Received:
    21,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Makes you think it’s those who think—or hope—that bluster and BS will overcome the facts. MOO.
     
  6. HopeForTheBest

    HopeForTheBest Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,259
    Likes Received:
    21,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ugh! So slimy! Even if it were true why he says he wants it, how slimy and nosy! :( He can scrape up the gum or whatever MT left on that sidewalk as she was providing cover for FD stuffing the license plate in the drain. Yep, a sidewalk is a good place to wipe off your hand. :( MOO.
     
  7. HopeForTheBest

    HopeForTheBest Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,259
    Likes Received:
    21,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, the dissembling here! Nauseating! “Just another member of the public” in any context related to JFD? As usual, I’m horrified that he thinks anyone would believe him and then mad that of course he knows we won’t and still pushes that slime our way. Ugh! MOO.
     
  8. HopeForTheBest

    HopeForTheBest Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,259
    Likes Received:
    21,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do they get so many? I know Covid caused some but it feels like more for these two. MOO.
     
  9. Jmoose

    Jmoose Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,554
    Likes Received:
    38,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Each of these two jerks (KM and MT) seem to want to be in court after the other one. Looks like leapfrog to me-especially important for MT, IMO
     
  10. pernickety

    pernickety Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    7,759
    Trophy Points:
    93
  11. Jmoose

    Jmoose Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,554
    Likes Received:
    38,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. Niner

    Niner Long time Websleuther

    Messages:
    59,779
    Likes Received:
    177,102
    Trophy Points:
    113
    His new attorney is Tara Knight.
     
  13. Tink56

    Tink56 MOO...IMO

    Messages:
    2,512
    Likes Received:
    23,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just dropping by with the reminder that KM is still scheduled for a pre-trial hearing next week. Of course, that will probably change, eh? IMO....MOO

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

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

    LosAngeles Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    2,612
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Looks like there is a change! Here we go again (and again...and again)
    REMOTE HEARING ON 01/18/2022
    Last, First: MAWHINNEY KENT Represented By: 007660 BUTLER N & GOLD
    Birth Year: 1965 Times on the Docket: 23
    Docket Information
    Docket No: FST -CR20-0241179-T Arresting Agency: CSP TROOP G
    Companion:
    Program: Arrest Date: 1/7/2020
    Court: Stamford JD Bond Amount: $246,000 (This case only)
    Bond Type: Multiple Bonds
    Miscellaneous: (Released From Custody)
    Activity: Pre-Trial Next Court Date: 1/18/2022 11:30 AM
    Current Charges
    Statute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding
    53a-54a CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER B Felony 1 5/24/2019 Not Guilty
     
  15. Niner

    Niner Long time Websleuther

    Messages:
    59,779
    Likes Received:
    177,102
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @LosAngeles - probably these 2 charges are still on 11/30/21?

    Hartford #H14H-CR19-0281509-T (Violation) & #HHD-CR19-0266274-T (assault).
     
  16. Tink56

    Tink56 MOO...IMO

    Messages:
    2,512
    Likes Received:
    23,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looks like those charges are still set for hearings:

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

    Search By: Defendant = MAWHINNEY,First Initial = K

    Record Count: 3

    [​IMG]FST -CR20-0241179-T
    MAWHINNEY KENT DOUGLAS 1965 Hartford GA 14 Awaiting Disposition 11/30/2021 02:00 PM REMOTE HEARING [​IMG]H14H-CR19-0281509-T
    MAWHINNEY KENT DOUGLAS 1965 Hartford JD Pre-Trial 11/30/2021 02:00 PM REMOTE HEARING [​IMG]HHD -CR19-0266274-T
     
  17. Niner

    Niner Long time Websleuther

    Messages:
    59,779
    Likes Received:
    177,102
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for checking that out @Tink56 ! [​IMG]
     
  18. Jmoose

    Jmoose Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,554
    Likes Received:
    38,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another delay….Are they hoping that these charges will eventually just go away?
     
  19. pernickety

    pernickety Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    7,759
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Here's the state's motion to dismiss Schoenhorn's case against the court reporter for not giving him a transcript of the sealed divorce hearing (re psychologist's testimony)
    http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=21056112


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

    Jmoose Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,554
    Likes Received:
    38,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is Schoenhorn stupid, or is this a show he is putting on, primarily for the Troconis family, to justify his fee? Surely, he can’t be stupid, right?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice