MICHELLE TROCONIS AND THE REID TECHNIQUE!

I have just been looking at the March 6, 2024 Taylor Hartz Hartford Courant article entitled, "Attorneys agree:  Michelle Troconis 'had everything to lose' in interviews with CT Investigators".  According to the article, Troconis underwent three interviews, "The first one at the New Canaan Police Department on June 2, 2019, the second at [her Attorney Andrew] Bowman's office on June 6, 2019, and the third in Bridgeport on August 13, 2019.  These three interviews played a major role in her conviction for conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of tampering with evidence, two counts of conspiring to tamper with evidence, and second-degree hindering the prosecution, for which she received a sentence of 14 1/2 years. 

According to Michelle Troconis' second attorney, Jon Schoenhorn, the entire case against Troconis was 90% based upon these interviews. This is why I find it so remarkable that Michelle Troconis' first attorney, Andrew Bowman, a highly regarded professional with years of experience, would even begin to allow them.  According to Hartz, Linda Urso, the attorney for Dulos' former project manager, Pavel Gumienny, stated she would never allow such an interview without an immunity deal on the table. From what I gather, Michelle Troconis appears to have thought she had an informal immunity deal on the table, but that is entirely meaningless as we all know, and any attorney would know that. Hartz again reports that Attorney Schoenhorn commented, "I have no insight as to why any lawyer without either an immunity agreement or a proffer agreement would walk their client into a police interrogation without knowing very much about the offense."  

For those of us who have gone through the family court system, we probably have some very similar questions.  I personally had one of the top family court attorneys at the beginning of my divorce and he literally destroyed my case within the first five months.  This is where you start to wonder whether there is some conspiracy going on or some kinds of back room dealings.  I know it sounds paranoid, but seriously, what else are you going to speculate when a distinguished attorney, i.e. Attorney Andrew Bowman, with years of experience acts like a rooky.  Actually, even less than a rooky because any one of us who have watched "Law and Order" know better than to cooperate in a police interview without some kind of deal or a defense attorney who actually provides a defense.  I actually tend to see Michelle Troconis' complete naivete on that point, or alternatively what you might call a total lack of street smarts, as an indication that maybe she was innocent. 

I'm just looking at my notes regarding these interviews.  For the better part, from what I see, during these interviews, Michelle was not provided with an interpreter. This is a major issue given that cognitive processing and access to memory can be impacted by the language a person uses. Again, the fact that Attorney Bowman did not request an interpreter, which any person on the street would know should have been done, raises significant questions about what the heck Attorney Bowman thought he was doing. 

The first interview was conducted under really horrendous circumstances.  Apparently, she was arrested in the middle of the night at the hotel room she was staying in with her mother and daughter. Upon arriving at the police department in New Canaan, she was asked to undress to be photographed, and then peppered with questions from three to five detectives who sometimes lied about the facts of the case. Taylor Hartz of the Hartford Courant reports that detectives stated they had "found hard evidence of a murder" even though they actually didn't.  They also stated they found a pillow in one of the bags Fotis Dulos tossed out along Albany Avenue with Farber Dulos' blood on it.  In fact, they didn't have any such thing.  

Prosecutors have talked about how there were many contradictions and inconsistencies in Michelle Troconis's interviews with detectives. On the other hand, given how many threats and lies the detectives attacked Michelle with, is that so surprising?  According to Attorney Mark Sherman, a criminal defense attorney in Stanford, "Police can say whatever they want and there are no consequences."  Taylor Hartz of the Hartford Courant reports further, "Police are allowed to lie to suspects during interrogations to gather evidence..." I can imagine that if you have any mental health disability or physical problem such as a lack of sleep or are under a great deal of stress, with people aggressively attacking you verbally, lying to you and tripping you up verbally, you could end up saying all sorts of off the wall remarks.  

(As an aside, it is worth noting the point Taylor Hartz further makes that lying to anyone under 18 was made illegal in 2023. Slowly, but surely, people are waking up to the fact that these tactics are simply no good.)  

So when these investigators were lying and misrepresenting facts to Michelle Troconis, what were they doing? They were implementing The Reid Technique, a method of interrogation developed by John E. Reid in the 1950s and currently used as a standard in police departments around the country. (Yes, I know, a 74 year old technique). 

This technique is notorious for the fact that 29% of wrongful convictions were the result of false confessions elicited by The Reid Technique. In fact, what is interesting about The Reid Technique is that the first time the technique was used, it elicited a false confession.  In 1955, in Lincoln, Nebraska, John Reid was able to get a suspect, Darrel Parker, to confess to killing his wife.  Even though he recanted his confession the next day he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.  However, later on, another man confessed to the crime.  Parker sued the state and received $500,000 in compensation.  

Despite this miserable failure at the start in the use of this technique, Reid continued on to write a book on his approach which was published in 1962 entitled "Criminal Interrogations and Confessions".  Miranda warnings, made the law in 1966, were actually instituted in order to respond to the abuses of the Reid Technique.  

Substantial parts of the Reid Technique have been called into question. For instance, the implication that a police officer can determine guilt or innocence from body movements like fidgeting has been debunked.  Further, studies done on the application of the Reid Technique indicate that police are no better than anyone else at determining whether a person is lying or not.  In connection to what Michelle Troconis experienced during her interrogations it is worth noting the following reported by CBC News in January 28, 2003, "Abuses of interrogation methods [i.e. Reid Technique] include officers treating accused suspects aggressively and telling them lies about the amount of evidence proving their guilt.  Such exaggerated claims of evidence, such as video or genetics, have the potential, when combined with such coercive tactics as threats of harm or promises of leniency, to cause innocent suspects to become psychologically overwhelmed."  

Given Michelle Troconis was being threatened over access to her daughter, she was being told she was the most hated woman in America, she was being lied to and grilled under conditions that compromised her mental capacity to cope, then the fact that her responses were inconsistent would make perfect sense. So why didn't her attorney, Jon Schoenhorn put The Reid Technique itself on trial?  Other civilized Western nations have stopped using it.  Why are we still using it here in Connecticut when it has been so discredited and there are many other more effective approaches?  Is there a sort of joy in bullying and railroading people we don't like into jail regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent?

After Michelle Troconis' conviction, in an article published in the Hartford Courant on July 5, 2024 Taylor Hartz quotes Detective John Kimball, one of the lead interrogators in Michelle's case as saying, "I am sure with 100% certainty that she has additional information that could help us determine what happened to Jennifer and where she is located."  At the same time, during her trial, Kimball admitted to "using ruse style tactics" against Michelle. Given the history of The Reid Technique, I think it is laughable for him to speak with such confidence.  100 percent.  Really?  Detective Kimball said that the ultimate goal with Michelle Troconis was to get at the truth.  Yet he relied upon a flawed, old fashioned technique with a long history of error when it comes to ascertaining the truth.  If he actually cared about the truth, why did he use it?

I can't say that I think much of Michelle Troconis.  How foolish could she be to think that she Jennifer and the kids were all going to be one big happy family in Farmington.  But did she conspire to commit murder, tamper with evidence, and hinder the prosecution?  I'm not sure.  The fact is that she was no where near the crime when it occurred.  Pavel Gumienny, on the other hand, was in the local area where the crime took place. Unfortunately, the electronic data in the vehicle he drove seems to have had some glitch so it wasn't possible to track his movements.  Law enforcement said at the time that there is no way to tamper with that data.  However, I've looked it up in google and, in fact, you can tamper with it according to the articles I read. 

So what am I saying?  I don't know.  It is ironic that a mother gets killed in a domestic violence incident and none of the men charged in the case have yet been brought to trial and convicted, but we have the woman, by gosh!

THE BOYNE CASE: PAUL BOYNE V. HEATHER BOYNE 2007

To be honest, I have only recently taken the time to look at the Boyne case to determine what is the basis for blogger Paul Boyne's anger towards the CT Family Court system.  I did not assume his case was the initial motivation because there is so much wrong with the CT Family Court system, you can become enraged by its actions without ever being a party to a case.  Nonetheless, as I found out, Paul Boyne did have a very difficult family court case which could be the basis for his ongoing anger and disillusion.  

The Boyne divorce took around two years from November 2, 2005 to June 25, 2007 which is pretty standard for contentious divorces, although clearly a whole lot of action took place post-judgment both in Connecticut and New York.  FYI, I'm going to just write down my ongoing impressions of the decision in this Boyne case as they occur to me.  As I've said before, I can't do the fine tuning I'd prefer to do in my written work because of my current life circumstances.  So I hope you will cut me some slack for that.

The first point I noticed is that there is a "Memorandum of Decision" in this case. This means that the case went to trial on October 3-4, 2006 and again on November 1, 2006 and March 1, 2007.  At the trial, according to the Memorandum of Decision, "The parties presented testimony and introduced documentary evidence.  The Court, after hearing the testimony and reviewing the exhibits and proposed orders" drew conclusions and formulated orders applying to custody and financial arrangements post divorce.  Given that all of this testimony and documentary evidence came before the Court, what is striking about this Memorandum of Decision is how little of this evidence made its way into the decision.  If I didn't know better, I might think this Memorandum of Decision is actually a Memorandum of Understanding or some kind of agreement between the parties because it is written more like an agreement.  

In fact, a later custody decision in New York state includes some discussion of the Memorandum as an agreement with Paul Boyne insisting it is not an agreement. I mean, I get that.  Some so called agreements are forced upon the parties.  However, this document is not referred to as an agreement, but it still reads like one.  How, you might ask?  It does not have the backup evidence from testimony and documentation which would ordinarily be used as the basis for the judge's decision.  Also, it doesn't have the kind of explanations for how the law applies to the decisions made in the Memorandum of Decision that you would ordinarily expect. For me, this is a major red flag. 

In any legal document there is the surface intention, and then there are all the unspoken issues and political machinations which remain underneath the surface.  Whenever you get a legal document that is not in conformity to other similar documents, there is something wrong.  So right away I have concerns about what is going on in this case.  Of course, I can't go beyond the documents to speculate what that might be.  I've had people get angry at my work because I strictly limit myself to the evidence at hand. I don't listen to gossip or speculation and I'm not moved by a lot of razzle dazzle.  This is not the intention of my work.  I'm interested in finding the problems and pointing out where further investigation might be helpful.  

Here is one area in the Paul Boyne case.  The Memorandum of Decision states that Paul Boyne is an engineer and that he has had 11 jobs in 16 years.  I would like to know why.  What is going on here?  Is there some background factor which has led to frequent job changes such as challenges in his area of employment?  Does he have some kind of personality disorder which makes him a difficult employee?  All of this should have been investigated.  The Memorandum of Decision also states that Paul Boyne had "substantial mood swings."  Who said that?  His estranged wife?  It would be standard in a divorce case, for both parents to take psychological evaluations to determine their mental health status.  If Paul Boyne had bipolar, which this observation seems to hint at, then the Court should have ordered an examination.  If the Court ordered such an examination and Paul Boyne refused to take one, then that should be mentioned as well.  All these kinds of details are very helpful when it comes to a later Court, and there were many in this case, making any kinds of determinations.  

The Court continues on to say that when it came to the proceedings, "the defendant's hostility was palpable."  Why?  What was going on that Paul Boyne, right at this early stage of what came to be a multi-decade critique of the CT Family Court, felt such hostility to the point that some Family Court vendors resigned and didn't want to be part of the case?  Whatever it was is not said. I know that on some level, by not explaining, the Court doing that universal gesture of circling a pointer finger around the ear and implying we have a crazy person here.  But that kind of action is not helpful to the successful resolution of a Court case and now we can see the final results of doing so in the current cyberbullying case against Paul Boyne.  

If there is a problem, the Court has to say what it is, put a name to it, otherwise we are all left guessing and my radar is saying this is the kind of ADA case which violates federal law.  If Paul Boyne had a disability it needed to be addressed.  But we don't know, do we, because of how the memorandum is worded.  

Moving on, the custody arrangement in the Boyne case is extraordinary in that it gives Heather Boyne sole custody of the parties' four minor children and states that "The defendant shall have no visitation with the minor children, except at the discretion of the Plaintiff and initiated only by the Plaintiff."  These are extraordinary orders and would never be put into place in the present day.  Not only are such orders illegal now in Connecticut, but they are also illegal in New York where Paul Boyne appealed the case.  

Upon reviewing these orders, the New York state Court observed, "There is no order of protection of which this Court is aware--a circumstance confirmed by counsel this date--which prevented the father from contacting the mother to request or arrange for visitation.   Nor has the father alleged that the mother rebuffed or otherwise denied any such efforts."  Still, these are profoundly humiliating orders for any divorced parent placing total control in the hands of one party.  The wisdom of doing any such thing at any time is questionable as subsequent Court decisions have stated.  

The remainder of the Memorandum of Decision in the Paul Boyne case pretty much hands over most of the marital assets to the mother, i.e. 1. All educational accounts for the children are placed under mothers control; 2. Paul is required to quitclaim the marital home to his ex-wife; 3. Paul is asked to give his ex-wife $80,000 from his IRA; 4. Joint mutual funds go to the ex-wife; and 5. Paul is ordered to pay his exes attorney $15,000.  These are tremendous financial burdens which must have come along with the fees Paul owed to his own attorney which must have been considerable.  

Then Paul, on top of all that, was ordered to pay around $750 or so per week for the next 7 years.  That pretty much wipes him out financially is my best guess.  On top of that, the judge added an extra provision stating that "it is hereby further ordered that all of the obligations of this judgment are in the nature of support and shall not be dischargeable by either party in the event of a bankruptcy filing." All of them?  That is an extraordinary ruling! 

Further, the Court ordered Paul to guarantee these payments with a $500,000 insurance policy with the ex-wife and children as beneficiaries, and also to obtain a bond to cover these costs for the first year post divorce.  Meanwhile, what we have is a guy who has changed jobs 11 times in 16 years.  The Court acknowledged that in making its decision it was going on the basis of "earning capacity" rather than actual earned income.  Paul had only earned $41,000 in the three years leading up to the decision.  Still, this seems to me to be balancing an extremely heavy financial burden on a very fragile foundation. I say this recalling Paul's job instability and references to his mood swings.  All of this needed to be addressed in order to conclude the case in a realistic manner which would provide a pathway for both sides to regain their financial and emotional stability after the divorce.  This is the goal, not to burden either party so greatly that he or she is never able to recover.

The orders in this case, both custody and financial, strike me as extreme and impossible for Paul Boyne to follow through on successfully.  The better part of wisdom would have been to establish Court orders post judgment which were achievable for the parties involved.  I would expect some mention in the custody order of what steps Paul Boyne could have taken in the future in order to make it more equitable. I would have thought some mention of options for reducing child support and alimony if Paul were unable to get a job after reasonable attempts to do so.  Of course, more deeply, I would have expected some report by a professional evaluator as to what Paul Boyne's true earning capacity was. To me, this issue was not open and shut, given Paul's employment history.

There are many mysteries in this case. So much is left unsaid and unreported.  I will note that one GAL in the case stated that "she felt she was in fear of her safety by [Paul]" but best guess if she is dead today, this is not by Paul Boyne's hand and that was almost 20 years ago.  I've known this accusation of "fear of safety" by family Court vendors to be directed towards anyone who disagrees with them or who is smart enough to expose their flaws. I don't know what to make of it.  But so far, no one has died because of Paul Boyne.  I do think that the CT Judicial system has got to stop beating around the bush, jailing and legally persecuting people regarding issues the public is not fully informed about because Judges use the process of writing up decisions to conceal rather than reveal.

HARTFORD COURANT: PAUL BOYNE COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL!

An October 31, 2024 "Hartford Courant" article by Edmund H. Mahoney reports that blogger Paul Boyne has been found competent to stand trial.  See below:

"A man accused of cyberstalking for tormenting judges with malicious blog postings was found competent to stand trial Thursday and fired his public defenders for questioning his mental fitness.

The decision by Paul Boyne to discharge his two court-appointed lawyers puts his case, with its first amendment implications, on hold.

Boyne has argued, so far unsuccessfully, that his arrest should be dismissed because it violates his free speech rights. He has been in custody, unable to post bond, since his arrest 15 months ago on 18 felony stalking and cyberstalking charges."

For the rest of this article, click on the link below:

https://www.courant.com/2024/10/31/man-accused-of-harassing-ct-judges-found-competent-to-stand-trial-fires-lawyers/?clearUserState=true

THE FRANK REPORT COVERAGE OF PAUL BOYNE CASE

 

For those of you who are interested in a different perspective on the Paul Boyne case, here are some articles from "The Frank Report" written by independent journalist Mr. Frank Parlato.  I have included the links below.  What I found even more interesting when I read these articles were the comments below them.  So make sure you continue to read the comments underneath the articles because they give you a real insight into the inner workings of family court from the perspective of people who have lived experience and have done a great deal of research. 

Paul Boyne From Jail Says His Lawyers Killed Plea Deal; Judge Orders Mental Competency Test on Jewish Conspiracy Blogger

https://frankreport.com/2024/09/15/paul-boyne-from-jail-says-his-lawyers-killed-plea-deal-judge-orders-mental-competency-test-on-jewish-conspiracy-blogger/

Savior or Cyberstalker? Paul Boyne Still Fighting For Free Speech From Behind Bars

https://frankreport.com/2024/10/28/savior-or-cyberstalker-paul-boyne-still-fighting-for-free-speech-from-behind-bars/

Blogger Paul Boyne Held Without Bail for Posts Suggesting Violence Against Jewish Judges Seeks Release Based on First Amendment

https://frankreport.com/2024/09/02/blogger-paul-boyne-held-without-bail-for-posts-suggesting-violence-against-jewish-judges-seeks-release-based-on-first-amendment/

EDMUND H. MAHONY ON PAUL BOYNE'S RETURN TO COURT!

I woke up this morning to another "Hartford Courant" article on Paul Boyne courtesy of Edmund H. Mahony.  It is entitled "Man accused of cyberstalking CT judges refuses to submit to court-ordered competency exam."  I'm going to do a cheating way of writing this article because I'm so busy I can't do the kind of heavily reviewed work I'd like to do.  Instead, I'll give you an example of the kind of critical reading that I do which often ultimately leads to a finalized blog with thorough research. So keep in mind that my writing here is on the draft level.

Looking at the title, I see it says that "Man"--ok, we all know this is Paul Boyne.  That's not rocket science.  I'm not sure why the "Hartford Courant" has such a hard time saying the name.  We family court advocates are saying it and have been saying it for the over a decade we have known him.  Is he a "notorious blogger" as Edmund H. Mahony describes him?  I don't think so.  If I ever mentioned him to the man on the street--and I just did to one of the librarians at the library I'm typing this article in--I'm likely to get a puzzled look and the word "Who?"  Paul is only notorious to corrupt family court players.  As I say, if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear from Paul because he won't mention you.  

So what's new with Paul? He refuses "to submit to court-ordered competency exam".  Is there any reason that he should?  Everyone who knows Paul is well aware that he may be annoying but he isn't crazy--not according to any legal definition of the term. I believe that obeying an order to cooperate with a psychological evaluation in criminal court would be kind of like being forced to incriminate yourself.  That's illegal as far as I know.  I mean, they force people to take psychological examinations all the time in family court, but I don't think it is legal in criminal court.  Plus, I think when they are talking competency, they aren't talking about being argumentative, they are talking about being psychotic to the point where you can't even have a coherent conversation with your attorney.  The fact that the Court has actually ordered a competency exam for a person who writes his own motions and argues his case pro se in Court is actually kind of an embarrassment for the Court.  When you do something really stupid like this, it makes you look totally incapable of running a Courtroom.  

What has caused this big hullabaloo? Paul has apparently been charged with using "racist and anti-semitic language to promote conspiracy theories about control of the state judiciary."  As far as I know, this is not illegal.  Is the criminal justice system for real?  You may not like Qanon type theories and you may think anti-semitism is distasteful, but it sure isn't illegal as far as I know.  So the Court has kept Paul Boyne in jail for fourteen months for exercising his freedom of speech?  Is that what this is all about?  How silly is that? 

It doesn't seem fair to me that the State of Connecticut can jail a person without trial for 14 months and require an amount of bail that he will never be able to meet.  Paul Boyne lives on social security at his parents house.  Where is he going to run with no money?  Couldn't they put an ankle bracelet on him and hold him in house arrest?  They sure gave Michelle Traconis a better deal and she was charged with conspiracy to murder!  

Digging into the issue deeper, Edmund Mahony states that in his blog "Family Court Circus", Paul Boyne suggested that "violence is a remedy for disgruntled litigants."  According to the law, which I just looked up, freedom of speech protects most speech except that which consists of a "true threat", i.e. speech that is intended to communicate a serious threat of violence to a specific person. From what I gather, Paul's statements have been so broad, you can't nail them down that closely.  It is important to note that proving "true threat" is not easy. In prosecuting this point of law, the attorney must demonstrate that the speaker has some understanding that the statement is threatening.  The speaker must be aware of the effects of their speech.  The speaker must also know that the threat can be carried out.  How the recipient responds to the statement is also a factor.  

More specifically, "the Supreme Court ruled in Counterman v. Colorado that the speaker must have a reckless state of mind to be considered a true threat.  This means that the speaker must have consciously disregarded the risk that their statement would be perceived as threatening."  I obtained this information from AI on google.  From what I can see, this is a pretty high standard.  I also looked at an affidavit and application for a search and seizure warrant in Paul's case which was used to seize his electronics.  Listed among the grounds for this warrant, I did not see any condition which would rise to the level of a true threat.  

Perhaps I need to continue investigating, but at this point, this is my conclusion. In fact, what I see in the warrant is the desperate attempt to invade the contents of an independent journalist's private electronics in order to fish for some evidence of something incriminating.  I don't think that is how the law is supposed to be used.  

Mahoney goes on to report that there is a standoff between Paul Boyne and his attorneys.  According to Mahony, "Boyne's public defenders asked the court to order the competency evaluation a month ago..."  All I can say to that is, why in the world would they request a competency evaluation or call into question Paul's competence if they are truly representing him.  In fact, it is my understanding that Paul was in the final stages of a beneficial plea deal when his so called attorneys derailed the agreement with this request for a competency exam. This is not an unusual situation for the Court system in the State of Connecticut, i.e. to fake that a person has a defending attorney simply because they have a warm body next to them.  Clearly, this is not the case when it comes to Paul. 

Mahony makes the point that Paul's attorneys are upset with him because Paul insists that a "former associate justice of the state Supreme Court" is behind the case against him. From what I understand, there is concrete documentary evidence of this fact.  So if Paul's public defenders are using that as the basis for claiming he lacks competence, that's kind of silly. 

Apparently, when Judge Peter Brown asked Paul Boyne whether he was going to cooperate with the psychological evaluation, Paul asked Judge Brown why he should.  Judge Brown said, "I'm not going to argue with you."  Perhaps this is because he actually doesn't have a legitimate legal argument.  You may be annoyed that a pro se attorney asks you as a judge for the legal basis for your decision making, but you are legally required to provide one, or some semblance of respect for the process should lead you to provide one.  

At the end of this hearing, Paul Boyne's attorney, Jennifer M. Buyske, bemoaned the fact that there has been a breakdown of communication between his defense attorneys and Paul.  Boy, I wonder why!  

There isn't much more to respond to in this Edmund H. Mahony article.  Mr. Mahony quoted people who said Paul Boyne is "consumed by what he believes was unfair treatment in his divorce and custody case."  Given Paul's committed and dedicated advocacy for family court reform during the course of a decade, it might make sense for a responsible journalist to find out what was involved in the Boyne case. Why has it brought up major concerns for Paul and many others over the corrupt and unethical practices of the CT Family Court System.  Why not investigate this question? In 2013, approximately 80 current and former litigants provided testimony to the CT State Legislature regarding the horrific and abusive practices of family court.  Paul Boyne's actions do not arise out of a vacuum.  This freedom of speech case is not complete without a full investigation of the motivations behind Paul Boyne's actions.  The fact that it has not been done thus far is simply a disgrace.  

Finally, "not long ago [Paul] suffered a head injury in a prison dispute."  Let's get real.  Paul was attacked by fellow inmates.  Our prison system can't even keep prisoners safe who have not been convicted in a court of law and who are innocent before being proven guilty. That's just bad. As citizens of CT, we should be ashamed that this kind of injustice is taking place in our state, the birthplace of the constitution.  I'm sorry this may not be as well written as some of my other blogs, but I hope all of you see that it comes from the heart, and with great sympathy for a writer who has been silenced for speaking his mind as I have been many times during the course of writing this blog.

DIAGNOSING JENNIFER DULOS!

What does justice for Jennifer mean?  Historically, if we could rewind the clock, I think it would mean handling the Dulos divorce more equitably and not allowing it to become money driven. It would certainly mean providing Jennifer with more legal protections. In the present, I believe it means preserving Jennifer Dulos character and reputation.  This has not been done, and to the extent that it has not been done, the murderer wins.

From the start of the Dulos divorce case, Fotis Dulos tried to smear Jennifer Farber-Dulos reputation by calling her crazy.  In a "Hartford Courant" article of May 30, 2019, less than a week after her death, reporters stated, "Dulos made serious allegations against his wife saying she was an unfit mother because she was taking medications and had been treated for mental illness and had a relative that committed suicide."  Fotis Dulos made this statement because he felt it would give him traction in Family Court where accusations of mental illness, in violation of ADA law, can still be fatal to a mother's attempt to retain custody of her children. Also, having relatives with mental illness, remarkably, can reduce your chances of getting custody.  It is as if mental illness of any kind is a form of modern day leprosy. 

Under the ADA signed by President Bush in 1990, discrimination against people based upon disability is prohibited by law.  Yet discrimination is alive and well in the family courts of Connecticut at the present time.  If we were to talk about justice for Jennifer, to give her justice posthumously, it would be to absolutely prohibit statements in Court such as the one Dulos made equating having a mental illness or anyone in the family with a mental illness to being an unfit mother.  How disgraceful that the Court allowed it then.  How disgraceful that they continue to allow it now.

The other thing I would like to point out is that Judge Nelson-Heller sealed the Dulos custody report and Dr. Stephen Herman's testimony in regard to that report.  This was followed by the effort on the part of Michelle Troconis defense team to unseal the report, an effort which failed miserably.  Still determined to get information out there, on February 15, 2024 during her criminal trial, Michelle Troconis posted the sealed custody report on her computer screen for all to see. That day, the Farber family spokesperson, Carrie Luft, noticed the custody report on Michelle's computer screen and reported her. This led to Michelle being charged with contempt.  On March 6, 2024, journalist Taylor Hartz reported this incident in The Hartford Courant as follows:  "Apparently, the page Michelle was looking at included part of the psychological report of Jennifer Dulos.  It referenced the name of a particular doctor and the words Borderline Personality Disorder." This information, including the diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder for Jennifer Dulos, was placed on the warrant for Michelle Troconis' arrest for contempt of court.  

Subsequently, the report that Jennifer Dulos had been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder was stated repeatedly in other Hartford Courant articles. Why? I thought the content of the custody report was sealed.  It was entirely possible for Carrie Luft to report on the incident without mentioning the diagnosis which was part of Jennifer Dulos' private medical information.  The same goes for the arrest warrant and the later Hartford Courant reports.  By disclosing the diagnosis, Carrie Luft, the warrant, the newspaper were all acting in contempt of the Court order sealing the contents of the custody report, just the same as Michelle was.  They should all be charged.

Why do I care about that?  Applying this diagnosis to Jennifer Dulos is simply defamatory.  Find me a mother whom Family Court has demonized, and she will be diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder.  BPD is the diagnosis given to any troublesome woman who dares to stand up for herself.  Its sexist political history and implications are extensive and decades long. Meanwhile, Fotis Dulos, the killer, supposedly had no psychopathology.  It certainly makes you wonder how psychiatry is weaponized and distorted within the family court system.  Only in family court could a killer walk around diagnosis free while his victim is labeled with a damning one.

Ultimately, l consider the BPD diagnosis for Jennifer to be completely bogus.  Across the board, friends of Jennifer have talked about what a great person she was. This is completely contrary to a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder.  Here is one person's description of Jennifer, "She was lovely, kind, and shy and a little funny and very private and very quiet."  And another, "She was a person who had many friends and worked well with teachers and administrators at the school where her kids got their education."  Suffice it to say, a person with a Borderline Personality Disorder is not capable of such positive social interactions with others. Again, another friend said, "her insatiable curiosity about the world, the delightful way she could find the humor in anything and laugh at the absurdity of everyday life, and the fierce way she protected those she loved was typical of Jennifer." Finally, her Mom, Gloria Farber, said "My daughter left behind a legacy of love for her children.  Her patience, empathy, discipline and loyalty stay with them."  

Justice for Jennifer would have meant not allowing that false diagnosis to make it into public view. It is patently false from the perspective of everyone who knew her. I am asking how it did become public, given that it is information from a sealed custody report. I'm also asking how Jennifer was labeled with a complete inaccurate diagnosis.  Was there in fact a custody switching scheme in the works to label Jennifer crazy and put all the children in Fotis Dulos sole custody and keep Jennifer paying forever to get them back.  Did her murder interrupt that scheme? 

Every once in a while, I drive back and forth over Avon Mountain and I see the shrine for Jennifer Dulos.  It is a very touching demonstration of love and caring for the memory of Jennifer Dulos.  But it isn't enough.  If we want Justice for Jennifer and for others just like Jennifer, we have to go further.  

We have to hold the Judicial System accountable for their mistakes and we need to demand that the same things that happened to Jennifer don't happen to the next person. Whoever is responsible for disseminating the information regarding Jennifer's purported diagnosis should be censored and it should be removed from the public record. That's what Justice for Jennifer actually means.

WHAT DOES JUSTICE FOR JENNIFER ACTUALLY MEAN?

In a Court filing requesting a restraining order against her ex-husband, Fotis Dulos, Jennifer Farber-Dulos stated, "I am afraid of my husband.  He is dangerous and ruthless when he believes that he has been wronged.  During the course of our marriage, he has told me about sickening revenge fantasies and plans to cause physical harm to those who have wronged him."  Judge Nelson-Heller denied the request for a restraining order, and in retrospect we all wish she hadn't.  Of course, with a man intent upon murder, it's not very likely a restraining order will stop him.  Still...

When I reviewed the Dulos case, primarily through reading articles published by The Hartford Courant, I investigated whether there was anything about Fotis Dulos which could have warned people in advance what he was capable of. In doing so, I realized we certainly weren't going to get any information from Dr. Stephen Humphrey who was Fotis Dulos' therapist.  Dr. Humphrey did a psychological examination of Fotis Dulos on behalf of the Court and determined that he "had no psychopathology" and presents "as gregarious and confident."  After what happened to Jennifer, we'd all like to know how he could be so far wrong.  

As it turns out, the reason why is that Dr. Humphrey solely used one test--the PAI test (Personality Assessment Inventory) along with meeting him for 20 hours.  According to google, the PAI can test for Somatic Complaints, Anxiety, Anxiety-Related Disorders, Depression, Mania, Paranoia, Schizophrenia, Borderline Features, Antisocial Features, Alcohol Problems, and Drug Problems. It is a self report inventory with 344 items that are answered on a four point scale. This is a problem because, as "Scientific American" reports, self inventory personality tests are not as accurate as others. Not only that, from my understanding, a psychological evaluation consists of numerous tests, not just one--some of them self report and others not.  

To be certain of this, I did a quick search of the internet and this is what I got from Psychology Today, "Psychological testing and evaluation consists of a series of tests that help determine the cause of mental health symptoms and disorders, to determine the correct diagnosis and follow up with the appropriate course of treatment."  In other words, "a series of tests", not just one.  When I had my last psychological evaluation for family court, I took five different tests.  How is it that Dr. Humphreys just used one?  Did he take one look at the charming Fotis Dulos and say why bother and then spent the rest of the 20 hours having nice chats?  Isn't that typical of how narcissists hoodwink not only mental health professionals and court personnel as well?  I'd say it is pretty classic.  

Were there any other indications that Fotis Dulos was capable of murder? For one thing, just before the divorce he purchased an unregistered gun in Florida without a permit.  Jennifer brought this to the Court's attention in one of her filings.  In it she wrote, "I am fearful of my and my children's safety, especially because he has a handgun in the house."  And further she stated, "I asked my husband to immediately remove the gun from the house, and he insisted that he was keeping the gun for protection."  Once the divorce was filed, Fotis Dulos turned the gun over to the Farmington police and subsequently never picked it back up because he didn't have a permit for it.  You have to wonder why he was running around with a gun just before the divorce.

In another incident Jennifer reported that Fotis Dulos threatened to run her over with a car.  These kinds of incidents are hard to prove because without a witness, they are he said, she said.  However, if that actually happened, it would have far worse implications than in most situations. This is because, in September 2010, Jennifer's mother-in-law was accidentally actually struck and killed by a car the nanny was driving in the driveway of the family home.  It's striking that this kind of scenario rose again within the context of the divorce.  In fact, knowing what we know now, it takes on an ominous tone.

Otherwise, in reading the Courant, I can't say there was anything else that indicated what Fotis Dulos was capable of.  I do think one incident alerts me to the fact that Fotis Dulos was a total jerk. Specifically, at one point, Fotis had all his kids baptized as Christians against Jennifer's wishes.  This is particularly offensive since Jennifer was Jewish and by Jewish law, since it goes by the matriarchal line, the children were also considered Jewish.  In addition, before Hilliard Farber died, Fotis Dulos told his father-in-law that if he didn't keep giving money to him, Fotis would take the kids to Greece and never come back. This is the "congenial" guy which Dr. Humphreys was talking about.  

The record shows that Jennifer Farber-Dulos absolutely outgunned Fotis Dulos financially.  She clearly felt the need to defend herself to the fullest extent she was capable.  While he spent $45,000 in a year on the divorce, sometimes filing his own motions, she spent $69,000 per month.  She had enough clout to get the Court to limit Fotis' access to the children and require that he have supervised visitation.  How?  She pointed out that he had allowed the kids to have contact with his mistress, Michelle Troconis, against Court orders, and then told the kids to lie about it.  For the rest of us who don't have that kind of money and status to help deal with our abusers, no way could we cut off our kid's other parent by making claims like that.  Ordinarily, the Court couldn't care less. We are told we should just move on and get over it. In my case, for six years my ex refused to adhere to medical guidelines for my disabled children's care and the Court didn't do anything about it.  

With all the Court processes, Fotis Dulos was staring financial ruin right in the face. This makes me question what Jennifer Dulos' attorneys were doing.  I mean, you may have the ability to grind someone down, but is it wise under the circumstances to do so.  Was it at all possible to arrive at a financial agreement which would have allowed Fotis Dulos to transition his business to a state of independence from his former in-laws without bankrupting him?  Was all out assault necessary?  

When it comes to custody, I was really struck by how clueless both Fotis Dulos and Michelle Troconis were.  Michelle made the comment at one point during the custody battle that she would love to get together with Jennifer and chat over a cup of coffee.  Was she kidding?  Then there was Fotis peculiar idea that he could have himself, Michelle and her daughter, plus Jennifer and the five kids all living together in the same house.  He thought his kids would make friends with Michelle's daughter and ultimately go to the same school together.  That is so pie in the sky only a totally insensitive fool would think of it.  But apparently, Fotis had concrete plans for that scenario.  This is where Jennifer's kids arrived at the conclusion that Michelle was trying to erase Jennifer and take her place which, to be honest, seems entirely plausible.  

If Jennifer felt she was going to lose her primary role as mother in the lives of her children, no wonder she fought with such vigor.  However, this is not a situation new to family court.  This is why Court orders are regularly put into place stating that romantic partners must be kept separate from the children.  If people violate those orders, they can be warned, held in contempt of Court, fined, or lose privileges in many ways.  However denying the offending parent access to the children or putting them on supervised visitation for that kind of offense is rather excessive. It might have made sense for Fotis' sessions with Dr. Stephen Humphrey to include some discussions about arriving at more realistic expectations for custody post divorce.  But it seems like the attorneys, GALs, and custody evaluators were more interested in keeping the conflict going instead of arriving at common sense solutions.

Bottom line, divorce is a vulnerable and unstable time for most people.  It is not the time for extreme accusations or extreme custody orders--at least not without a solid basis. It is not an opportunity to drive people into bankruptcy or for calling parents crazy.  Why try to push people over the edge? But if the legal team involved in the Farber-Dulos case were going to act so unwisely, thank God for the supervised visitation with the children. If Fotis Dulos was willing to kill Jennifer in cold blood, had he not been restricted by supervised visitation, what might he have done to the children?  It is chilling to speculate.

Justice for Jennifer would have meant that the judicial system and the legal professionals involved handled the Dulos divorce with wisdom and common sense.  Instead, they used it as an opportunity to churn the case and seize as much money as possible from both Jennifer and Fotis.  I suspect that the attorneys in the case were poised to carry out a custody switch from Jennifer to Fotis Dulos prior to her death.  This is why Fotis was cleared of any mental health pathology while the custody evaluator, Dr. Steven Herman, labeled Jennifer with a serious mental health condition which she could not possibly have had.  There were massive sums of money involved, and the kids came along with multi-million dollar trust funds. 

If we were truly invested in Justice for Jennifer, this kind of nonsense would stop.  The judicial branch and family court professionals would open themselves up for scrutiny and self criticism, and put a halt to the greed and corruption which has dominated the system for so long. It would end the news media blackout and allow newspapers and broadcast journalism to report on the judicial system fairly and honestly. Jennifer paid the ultimate price as a result of the CT Family Court's miserable failures.  It is about time that the State of CT did something about it.

MICHELLE TROCONIS: THE FIGHT OVER THE CUSTODY REPORT!

On Friday, March 1, 2024, Michelle Troconis was found guilty of all the six counts she was charged with, i.e. conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence, two counts of tampering with physical evidence and one count of second-degree hindering prosecution.  The basis for the conviction was grounded in DNA evidence from the trash bags Fotis Dulos dropped off along Albany Avenue in Hartford while Michelle was in the car.  It also came from interviews Michelle participated in with police at different times.  There was other evidence, but my point is that very little evidence arose from the Dulos custody report.  Very little evidence came in from assessments as to whether the victim, Jennifer Dulos, was or was not a nice person.  Certainly, the whole "Gone Girl" concept never made it to the stand and so pursuing that line of thought was a waste of time.  Why then did Attorney Jon Schoenhorn spend so much of his time (and by reference his client's money) pursuing the custody report and associated hearing transcript which added nothing to Michelle Troconis' defense? I think that's where thoughts of skullduggery in the judicial system arise, which Michelle was indirectly hinting at by posting articles on the disgraced medical examiner, Henry Lee. My primary question, talking about skullduggery, is why didn't Attorney Schoenhorn simply tell Michelle that the custody report and hearing transcript were irrelevant? After all, what could possibly be in the Dulos custody report which could exonerate Michelle?  Logically, nothing.

It is with this question in mind that I will now examine the issue of the Dulos custody report because it tells you a lot about how the legal system works, or doesn't work, depending upon your viewpoint. Here it is important to note that there are two forms of evidence that Michelle Troconis and her attorney were attempting to access.  First, there was the custody report itself.  Second, there was the transcript of the hearings where Dr. Stephen Herman provided testimony in regard to his custody report.  The custody report doesn't in itself provide complete information.  It is only when it is combined with the Court testimony of its author that legal professionals can fully understand the implications of the report and how it will impact future custody decisions.  When the author of the report is on the stand, attorneys for both the plaintiff and the defendant have the opportunity to challenge the content and hold it up for scrutiny.  

When we hear of the legal controversy over this issue related to Michelle's criminal trial, it is important to note that Michelle and her legal team obtained the custody report quite promptly.  Attorney Jon Schoenhorn requested a copy of the custody report in March 2021 and received a copy of it a month later in April 2021.  Where the controversy arose was in his attempt to obtain copies of the transcript of the hearing on the report which took place on March 14-15, 2019.  This is where Attorney Jon Schoenhorn faced one obstruction after the other, some of them, interestingly enough, of his own making.  Why?  Was he doing that deliberately?

The sequence of events is as follows.  In March 2021, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn asked the court clerk for a copy of the transcript of the hearings in regard to the custody report. In response, the clerk said no because it was sealed from the public. To verify that point, Attorney Schoenhorn went through the case file and was unable to find the Judge's sealing order.  He pointed that out and again asked for a copy of the transcript.  This is when the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut decided to intervene.  This is quite puzzling.  Why would such a high ranking official immediately become involved in a matter like this?  In my case, I had ten legal documents disappear, not just one, and that situation was simply handled by one of the judges in my case.  The fact that William Tong immediately jumped to attention and investigated the missing sealing order right away is quite striking.  It tells you how much attention Michelle's conspiracy trial was accorded all the way through the judicial system right to the top.

I also want to take some time out to make a point that has been on my mind for a long time related to Attorney General William Tong.  Beginning in 2013, dozens of family court litigants made their way to the judiciary committee of the CT State Legislature and presented testimony regarding the corruption, exploitation, and dysfunction they experienced in the CT Family Court system.  In response, they were mocked, disrespected, and generally disbelieved and treated as though they were crazy.  

In 2018, during William Tong's tenure as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, he presided over hearings where he was particularly rude, disrespectful and uncaring of the family court victims who came to provide testimony of the tragic and horrific experiences they'd had in family court.  In particular, Tong demanded that people who gave testimony remove T-shirts they were wearing which expressed their views, a demand for which he had absolutely no legal basis.  In fact, it violated their first amendment rights to freedom of speech. I can't help thinking that if the Judiciary Committee had exercised a modicum of wisdom in respecting the effort it took for these advocates to come to the State Capital and speak up about the legal abuses of family court, if they had only taken that testimony seriously and passed essential reforms at that time, Jennifer Dulos might still be alive today.  Instead, ironically, we have the infamous William Tong, who I believe gained his current position as Attorney General by frustrating the hopes of family court reform advocates, intervening in the details of the prosecution of Michelle Troconis.  It is interesting how everything intersects.  

Anyway, getting back to the main point, Attorney General William Tong investigated the missing sealing order.  He found that there was a public sealing order, but due to clerical error it wasn't properly posted in the case file.  He also stated that due to clerical error, the entire transcript of the hearing that day was sealed including the discussion about closing the courtroom and sealing Dr. Herman's testimony.  In fact, the only part of the transcript that should have been sealed was Dr. Herman's testimony, not the hearing on the motion to seal Dr. Herman's testimony.  That's quite a bit of clerical error.  Just like the ten documents which disappeared from my file was the result of clerical error.  What the clerical error in the Dulos case was hiding is that the courtroom was closed illegally during Dr. Herman's testimony and the transcript of the hearing was also sealed illegally.  What a convenient clerical error.  In this case, and in my own case of the missing ten documents, like Michelle, you start to think maybe there is some skullduggery involved here.

So how was the court closed and the transcript sealed illegally.  Apparently, if you wish to close the courtroom and seal a transcript, you are required to provide a 14 day public notice in advance and provide a record of a compelling reason to override the public interest in judicial transparency.  This was not done.  Presiding Judge Donna Nelson-Heller simply ignored the legal requirements and did what she wanted to do because she had the power and she could.  Now, I will acknowledge that it is standard to seal custody reports and the court transcripts of testimony by the authors of those reports.  In fact, the custody report in my case was sealed and I was glad that it was.  Who wants all that private information, much of it detailed mental health evaluations, not only of the parents but also the children, available to the public.  Of course, no one wants that.  

On the other hand, the law is the law, and it is intended to be obeyed.  There are proper steps that are supposed to be taken according to state statute if you intend to seal information from the public.  They were crafted as a consequence of lengthy negotiations with the media and private citizens after considerable abuses related to the issue. Yet this cavalier disregard for legal requirements is typical of family court judges.  They simply do whatever they want to do regardless of the law, regardless of case law, and regardless of the CT Practice Book which is supposed to guide their actions and their decisions.  The failure of judges to obey the law is what has undermined the public trust in the legal system and led to the family court reform protests of 2013-2018.

In an attempt to access these court transcripts, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn submitted motions to two other Superior Court judges asking them to overturn Judge Nelson-Heller's sealing order.  But again, why?  Of what possible value could the transcripts be when it came to Michelle's defense?  Help me here, because I seriously have no idea.  Both of these Superior Court Judges denied Attorney Schoenhorn's motions based upon Valvo v. Freedom of Information Commission which declared it illegal for one Superior Court judge to overturn another Superior Court judge's decisions.  I have to say even I knew that.  How is it that Attorney Schoenhorn didn't know?  Can he honestly say he was ignorant of this fundamental legal insight?  I find that hard to believe.  What was he doing?  Putting on a big act for Michelle instead of just telling her this transcript won't help you in the least?  

Next, Attorney Schoenhorn took his request to the Supreme Court and again asked for access to the transcripts.  In response, the Supreme Court asked why Attorney Schoenhorn didn't simply go to criminal court with his request.  Exactly!  Why didn't he?  The end result is Michelle Troconis wasted her time during her criminal trial looking at a custody report, and putting herself at risk of a contempt, for a document that really didn't have much of an impact when it came to convincing the jury of her innocence. Then to top it off, Attorney Schoenhorn made a song and dance about the transcripts regarding the custody report, pretending he was making serious efforts to obtain copies when he was really making deliberate and obvious legal mistakes and, wasting everyone's time, and doing it in such a way that everyone knew it, even non-attorneys like me. 

MICHELLE TROCONIS: WHY RISK A CONTEMPT OF COURT?

On February 15, 2024, on the 22nd day of her criminal trial, Michelle Troconis sat before her computer scrutinizing the Dulos Custody report in large font, a report which was sealed by court order. Eagle eyed in the gallery, long time Jennifer Dulos friend and the Farber Family spokesperson, Carrie Luft spotted the report and notified a Court Marshal.  Michelle's Mom, Marisela Arreaza, noticed the activity and quickly tapped Michelle on the shoulder to get her to shut down the screen.  But the damage had already been done.  By the end of the day, the Court had taken steps to have Michelle Troconis charged with Contempt of Court, a class B felony which could lead to a fine and up to six months in jail if convicted. 

From the beginning of the Dulos case, the custody report has been the center of ongoing controversy. What is it all about? One aspect of this is that the custody report was used to exonerate Fotis Dulos of his wife's murder. Specifically, Fotis Dulos and his supporters stated the he would have no motivation to murder his ex-wife, Jennifer Farber-Dulos, because the custody report indicated that the case was heading in his favor.  The report was presented to the Court on May 14, 2019 within days of Jennifer Dulos' death.  Prepared by Dr. Stephen Herman, it apparently cast Fotis Dulos in a very positive light. As an aside, Dr. Herman is known widely because he opposed the Yale Study done in the Woody Allen case which stated that Dylan wasn't abused.  

The Dulos custody report, I would suspect, was a substantive report because it goes up to a page 50, which was the page Michelle Troconis was reading when Carrie Luft reported her.  I point this out because I've seen custody reports that were only three pages long.  My question is, why would Michelle have put herself at risk of additional prosecution just so she could wave this custody report around?  What in the world did she expect to accomplish?  Is she trying to tell us that the custody report showed Jennifer was such a bad person she deserved to die?  Was she trying to tell us that actually, despite all evidence to the contrary, Jennifer pulled a "Gone Girl" and the sealed custody report would explain why?  Is she trying to comment on the corruption of the Court system for not allowing her to present the custody report which she considered relevant evidence?  What?  

In order to get as close to an answer as possible, I returned to the early articles which report on Michelle Troconis' attempts to unseal the custody report and transcripts of the May 14, 2019 Court hearings when Dr. Stephen Herman provided testimony regarding his report. 

And before I proceed, let me say that I sympathize with Michelle when it comes to her frustration.  I've been in numerous hearings in my own family court case where I had significant evidence which I couldn't present because of the rules of evidence or simply the Court's refusal to be bothered to look at it.  There is nothing more irritating than that experience, where you feel you have information that would exonerate you, but your can't present it.  I have often felt that there is a pyramid of evidence, and that judges only get to see a small amount of it.  Many times, because of statutes regulating how information is presented to the Court, judges are forced to make decisions based upon a very limited body of information.  This explains decisions that often don't make sense to the general public.  For instance, when they come to light because of a tragic circumstance such as the Dulos case.  Of course, I can only speculate Michelle felt this way. I've never spoken to her.  

Be that as it may, prior to Michelle's trial, on July 10, 2022 Edmund H. Mahoney, a journalist with The Hartford Courant, reported that Michelle's attorney, Jon Schoenhorn filed a motion stating that he wanted "a transcript of the custody hearing to look for anything that could help Troconis by revealing what may have precipitated Jennifer Dulos' disappearance."  This language directly echoed the kind of language Fotis Dulos and his attorney, Norm Pattis, were using when they were in the middle of their speculations that Jennifer had pulled a "Gone Girl."  If you look at The Hartford Courant article cowritten by Dave Altimari and Nicholas Rondinone and published on July 17, 2019, Attorney Norm Pattis wrote in a motion he submitted to Court that he wanted access to "the diagnosis and treatment Ms. Dulos received in the weeks before her disappearance as such information may shed light on what may have motivated her to disappear."  

This overlapping language leads me to believe that, even now, despite the evidence, a part of Michelle Troconis still believes that Fotis Dulos is innocent and that Jennifer did a "Gone Girl" or she wishes to argue that.  I guess love is blind, huh! I conclude this because of Michelle's laser focus on the custody report and the transcript of the court hearing on it, when neither had any significant relevance to the proceedings in her criminal trial. I think it is quite clear that Jennifer Dulos is dead, simply from the items Fotis Dulos threw out during his cruise down Albany Avenue in Hartford on the evening of the murder.

So what's up with posting this custody report and incurring a criminal charge for doing so?  At the very least, Michelle could have been saying Jennifer was such a bad person she deserved to die. However, it's amazing, but bad character or behavior still is not solid grounds for killing someone. I guess in our day and age with Trump I actually feel the need to say that. So if Michelle thought that was important to point out, she was sorely mistaken.

On the other hand, Michelle could have actually been hinting that Jennifer committed a "Gone Girl". Still, the forensic evidence says otherwise and why won't Michelle believe that evidence?  The answer to that question lies perhaps in another incident where Michelle posted an article on her computer for all to see about how the State's former top medical examiner, Dr. Henry Lee, falsified forensic evidence, thus leading to the conviction of innocent people.  This incident occurred while the Court was hearing testimony about the forensic evidence in Michelle's criminal trial. This leads me to believe that Michelle simply doesn't believe Jennifer is dead even to the point where she thinks the forensic evidence is fabricated, or she wants to argue that. 

This would explain why Michelle Troconis pled the fifth and refused to cooperate one single iota when she was asked to provide testimony in Fotis' civil trial held in November 2019 regarding the millions of dollars he allegedly owed the Hilliard Farber estate.  At every turn, Michelle's acknowledgement of Fotis Dulos' guilt has been weak and unconvincing.  I can see it must have been difficult for Michelle to process the fact that the man she passionately loved was also a murderer.  Of course, that assessment depends upon what she did or did not know. I can't know that for certain. 

Still, there is no doubt that Fotis Dulos was a very charming man who had a way with the ladies.  As soon as Fotis realized that Michelle Troconis was no longer useful to him, he dropped her for a gullible Anne Curry. Then, even as the police closed in and the evidence mounted that Fotis Dulos was clearly guilty, he was able to talk Ms. Curry into lending him $147,000 for bail.  As far as I know, as of March 28, 2024, she was continuing to fight to get her money back.  What a sucker in a series of suckers Fotis Dulos found it easy to cultivate.

Of course, Michelle Traconis has been convicted in a court of law of conspiracy to commit murder, so perhaps her focus on the custody report is just an attempt to distract us from the true facts of the case pointing towards her guilt.  Otherwise, there are so many mysteries in the Dulos case--perhaps this is one of them.  

UPDATE ON PAUL BOYNE!

I just received an update on Paul Boyne from independent reporter Michael Volpe from his substack reporting venue. 

As you know, Paul Boyne has now been sitting in jail for over a year because he posted what the Connecticut judicial branch considers offensive articles on his blog www.thefamilycourtcircus.com. Apparently, Paul's case was going to go to trial in September 2024, but it has been canceled.  Volpe speculates that the reason is that the state's case against him is so weak.  

From what I understand is that there was a plea deal in place on Monday, Sept. 9, 2024 which would have allowed Paul to plead guilty and the state would have accepted time served as punishment so that Paul could have walked out a free man.  However, at that point Paul's attorneys allegedly intervened, refused to proceed with the plea deal and claimed that he was incompetent.

Anyone who knows Paul is aware that this is nonsense.  As Michael Volpe states, "If you listen to any interview, you know he's plenty competent.  He's prepared to help with his defense, but his court appointed lawyers have been phoning it in from the beginning.  Now, they are suggesting he's incompetent."  Throughout the years, Paul Boyne has advocated for family court reform, provided emotional and legal research support to litigants, written articles for his ongoing blog, as well as been a good friend to many.  You may not agree with his views, but the idea that he is not competent is just silly.

Recently, as a self represented party, Paul Boyne submitted a federal motion for injunction to the federal courts. Could he have done this if he weren't competent? He was forced to write the motion by hand because the prison doesn't have computers or typewriters.  His court appointed attorneys--Jennifer Buyske and Alice Powers of the Kirschbaum Law Firm--have refused to assist him in his federal court filings.  Apparently, one reason they gave for refusing to assist him is that they don't know anything about the first amendment.  

This is beyond ridiculous. 

On the other hand, as a person who was subjected to numerous accusations--which were found to be false, fyi--that I was incompetent myself in family court, I am curious as to how they are going to go about this.  What foolish mental health professional would be dumb enough to take this on?  What parameters are they going to use?  Welcome to the therapeutic state everybody!

*Again this is an update from Michael Volpe's reporting venue on substack.  For more detailed analysis than I am able to provide, please refer to his substack account. 

Followup:

I did have a chance to speak to Paul Boyne today about what happened.  He explained to me that this week they were supposed to start jury selection for his case.  However, Jennifer Buyske and Alice Powers weren't prepared to proceed with trial.  They hadn't submitted any lists of witnesses, sent out any supoenas or prepared a list of exhibits for the court.  In essence, they had done nothing.  Instead, they spoke to the judge in chambers without Paul present and agreed to request a competency evaluation instead.  Later, Alice Powers went to speak to Paul and informed him of their intentions.  

Upon arriving in open court, his attorneys submitted a verbal motion to the court, but they didn't bother to submit a written motion. This gives me the impression that the move to examine Paul for competency was an off the cuff motion to obscure the fact that the attorneys weren't prepared. The grounds they provided were that Paul Boyne considered Joette Katz, former head of CT DCF, as part of the reason for his arrest.  Also, they stated he had suffered a concussion, which did occur when he was attacked by another inmate.  However, the doctor who examined him at the time did not indicate the concussion interfered with Paul's competency.  

Another interesting fact Paul Boyne shared with me is that Kirschbaum Law, the firm his attorneys are associated with, is not contracted with the New Haven Judicial District public defender to provide services.  It is contracted with Hartford and Waterbury, but not New Haven.  I consider it a very questionable practice to provide services without a proper contract. 

As a point of interest, I did look up whether it is legal for a judge to order a defendant to have a competency evaluation in criminal court.  Apparently, it is legal.  Apparently, "a court in Connecticut may order a competency exam for a criminal defendant if there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime and the request for an exam is justified."  Justification for such an exam would be 1. the defendant appears delusional or incoherent; 2. the defendant has a mental disease or defect; 3. the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against them; 4. the defendant is unable to assist in their defense.  Number two appears to me to be unusually broad--like any kind of mental disease or defect?  Any?  Wow.  

It does appear that the attorneys here are not acting in Paul Boyne's best interests when they nullify an advantageous, though unjust, plea deal in favor of a competency exam.  This has led Paul to question whether Alice Powers and Jennifer Buyske of Kirschbaum law can continue to represent him legally since they appear not to be acting in his best interests.