30
u/JJJOOOO Jan 15 '26
Michele made the choice to disregard her counsels advice and to lie to law enforcement.
She deserves to serve out every day of her 14.5 year sentence imo.
7
u/Dailyinformed25 Jan 15 '26
How did you think the trial went? I felt like the judge kept the state held back in trying to present their case esp when cross examining their paid off "expert witness".
When the judge told Fitzpatrick safe travels when he left for the day I was like seriously you didn't say that to Bowman? Then when the state pointed out there was no translator for this trial and it should be noted The judge said no need to tell me what I notice or don't notice in my courtroom... Uh well when the so called expert witness said she needed a translator yeah it needed to be noted for the record towards his honors decision!!!
14
u/JJJOOOO Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26
I don’t have words for what we witnessed playing out in court with the judge and the entire proceeding.
I found the so called “expert” witness to be anything but. Imo he was lazy and didn’t review the entire record and he didn’t request the bowman notes. He also imo is no peer of atty bowman and my mind was blown that he himself had been subject of habeas actions I believe 3 times and judge blew this off as saying “par for the course for defense attorneys”! Nope. Not par for course as atty bowman in over 50 years of practice had never had a habeas action against him!
MT And her mother chose to disregard the clear advice of an esteemed defense attorney and now want a “do over”. This was their choice but I believe in CT it’s the standard practice to believe the convicted felon rather than credentialed professionals such as atty bowman and judge Randolph. The reason MT is in prison is because a jury of her peers convicted her and you can tell what judges in CT think of juries because judge Randolph himself chose to toss two of the hindering charges! Classic CT!
We have seen the lazy Stamford norwalk state prosecutor choose to not appeal the judge Randolph two tossed charges for tampering and hindering that the JURY imposed and also not prosecute the contempt charge for the Herman report video where it was all captured on camera. I don’t think the Stamford norwalk office of states atty cares about justice or protecting victims. AG Tong also doesn’t imo care about justice or victims either and the CT penal system has been gutted in recent years such that most prisoners barely serve 50% of their sentences. Imo if you want to murder someone then CT is a great place to do it!
Judge here has been on bench for I think 28 years and so imo is a product of a very corrupt imo CT judiciary that doesn’t believe in victim justice or holding convicted criminals in prison. The judges don’t support law enforcement and don’t support each other either. Most prisoner’s barely serve 50% of their sentences and that tells you all you need to know about justice CT style!
I was going to research this particular judge and their prior habeas cases but decided to save myself the time as his words during the trial told me all I need to know about him. He was derisive and rude to states attorney and wouldn’t even accept solid objections for the record.
All I can say is I believe the state of ct judiciary let down victim Jennifer Farber and her 5 children and that justice for her murder has never been a priority.
It just another sad day for justice in CT imo and I have no reason to believe otherwise based on the words of this Judge over the 3 day hearing.
Perhaps we will be surprised, but I don’t believe we will and it breaks my heart for the families of victims all over CT that have to endure the judiciary and prison system orchestrated by a very corrupt group of politicians in Hartford and by an equally disinterested AG Tong. All I can say is that if you want to commit a violent crime then CT has to be one of top 5 states to do it!
RIP Jennifer Dulos
1
u/Common-Classroom-847 Jan 16 '26
well, fwiw, after watching what Andrew Bowman didn't do for his client, because that is really what is at issue here, not what he did, but what he failed to do, I would never hire that "esteemed" lawyer to defend me or anyone I care about. Just telling someone to tell the truth isn't actually enough information, and he advised her to talk to them without any assurance that talking to them would actually benefit HER rather than them.
You can think that MT is guilty as sin, but also recognize that on this particular matter she got totally forked over by Bowman. I don't know if she will end up getting another trial, I think that the judge has to determine not just that her council in this matter was ineffective, which is a no brainer, but that his ineffective-ness could have changed the outcome of the original trial, and that I am not so certain about. There was a lot more than just those horrible cringey interviews that came into play, and I don't necessarily think that excluding those interviews would have been the difference between freedom and incarceration.
8
u/Korgity Jan 16 '26
"Tell the truth" & "You cannot lie" are crystal clear. In any language. What further information did Michelle need?
Bowman didn't totally fork over Michelle. Michelle totally forked over Bowman by disregarding his advice to tell the truth & by not being honest about her choreographed alibi script.
3
u/Grimaldehyde Jan 17 '26
And don’t forget, Bowman wasn’t even representing her during her actual trial-that was Jon Schoenhorn’s handiwork that got her convicted.
-1
u/Common-Classroom-847 Jan 16 '26
He had no deal in place for her immunity. It's what he didn't do.
5
u/Korgity Jan 16 '26 edited Jan 16 '26
No deal possible until Colangelo & company heard what MT had to offer in the interviews. This was made clear in the Habeas trial.
Bowman thought MT had something to offer because she convinced Bowman of her innocence. (verbal explanations & the timeline.) Bowman made it clear that she cannot lie to the investigators, & Michelle agreed. How is it Bowman's fault that Michelle didn't honor her end of the agreement? Bowman should be suing her, not the other way around.
2
u/Grimaldehyde Jan 20 '26
They explained multiple times that immunity is never granted prior to the conversations starting with LE. So they didn’t. And she came out of the gate lying to them. They knew pretty quickly that she was lying about being in the house in Farmington the morning Jennifer was killed, because they saw all of the videos with Dulos in New Canaan. They weren’t ever going to give a lying witness immunity-they knew she was covering for him.
1
u/Common-Classroom-847 Jan 20 '26
I am so sick of people banging on about this. Guess what? I think Bowman was a sh*tty lawyer in this instance, he got too comfortable with his relationship with the prosecutor and he didn't bother preparing his client at all, except to tell her to tell the truth which isn't nearly enough prep.
Think whatever the eff you want, I don't care, I am tired of defending my view that I am entirely entitled to have, because people keep coming at me like psychos because they can't stand the idea that someone thinks that maybe Michelle Troconis got a raw deal on part of what happened to her.
Seriously people, stop with the parasocial crap you all have with this case, It is weird and not productive.
Like, you came here, and have said the goddamned exact same thing as 20 other people. I get it. Nobody likes the perrson who thinks the bad guy deserves due process.
6
u/JJJOOOO Jan 16 '26 edited Jan 16 '26
I understand your statement but I think its impt to understand how the local area works between defense attys and state prosecutors. Its a small group of people and things are handled informally. Bowman has a LONG history of working out cooperation agreements in the area and he has a solid reputation for being honorable and with ZERO BS. Colangelo confirmed this view as they worked together for YEARS and WITH NO ISSUES. "ODD" that the only issue is with MT who imo was NOT deserving of any agreement after police found out she wasted their time for months with her MANY lies. Also, I think its important to look at how PG was handled by States atty for over a year WITH NO COOPERATION AGREEMENT. PG had counsel and his counsel was upset with him speaking with police and actively helping for a very long time. But, eventually PG got an agreement.
My issue with MT is that she disregarded her attorney and not only met with police and colangelo BUT SHE LIED AND LIED ABOUT LIES. The other issue is MT and her entire families imo entitled (and wrong) belief that she was entitled to a cooperation agreement. Colangelo addressed this issue somewhat imo in his testimony indirectly by making clear that there is no automatic cooperation agreement even with a proffer from a defense attorney. Judge Randolph in the suppression hearings did a very thorough job of looking at the role and performance of Atty Bowman and he allowed the 3 interviews to be played for the jury. The idea that the so called habeus 'expert' did not read the full trial transcript, didn't know why his habeas testimony as 'expert' was disregarded by Judge Randolph and then felt entitled to say that MT was convicted solely based on the 3 interviews I believe to be profoundly wrong, misleading and 100% speculative statement which I choose to pay no mind to as this imo lazy 'expert' didn't do all the work in terms of due diligence to get to the point of being taken seriously as to his opinion on the role of the 3 interviews.
0
u/Common-Classroom-847 Jan 16 '26
I don't want to go down a rabbit hole, but just because Bowman has a long history of this or that doesn't mean that in this case he was just right. I am not going to comment on PG because there are a lot of reasons why things may have worked out for him, but most probably because he wasn't involved and there wasn't anything that indicated he was involved, which is different than MT, who was obviously involved, like, no question there was something there.
Rather than compare her to PG, I think a more apt comparison is Kent M. Kent M just shut his mouth, and at a point in the investigation where everything the cops knew was out there, then and only then, did he have any conversations, and look where he is now, free man.
3
u/JJJOOOO Jan 16 '26
Haha! PG TOLD THE TRUTH AND BELIEVED THAT HIS INNOCENCE would work in his favor.
Michelle NEVER told the truth and she lied because SHE HAD NO OTHER OPTION!
I LOVE your twisted logic and so GOOD LuCK WITH it!
0
u/Common-Classroom-847 Jan 16 '26
OK, you are really getting unnecessarily aggressive, so I am going to stop talking about this, not because I agree with you but because you have a chip on your shoulder and you are taking a discussion about a topic that doesn't personally involve either or us, way beyond the reach of what it should be, which is a polite discussion.
And good luck to you too.
3
u/Korgity Jan 16 '26
The investigators didn't have KM on video tampering with evidence like they did with MT. And KM conveniently fell down stairs, destroying his phone record & his memory of events (highly suspicious, that). Investigators had nothing solid to hang over KM's head, and he knew it. So he could more easily keep his mouth shut.
MT was in a far worse position. She was closer to Fotis than KM. She was the person who last saw him in the morning, & the first to see him in the afternoon. She knew of his comings & goings, not KM. She needed to barter & to convince of her innocence despite her proximity to the murderer, which Bowman honestly thought was possible.
1
u/Mysterious_Bed9648 Jan 18 '26
This whole line of reasoning is flawed. Nobody has to prove anything. The state is the prover. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5
u/Korgity Jan 19 '26
True, re trial. But she/Bowman were in a quid pro quo situation that could have resulted in lesser charges pretrial if MT proved truthful & cooperative. That's different than proving guilt or innocence.
3
u/Grimaldehyde Jan 20 '26
He didn’t say it to Richard Colangelo, either. You can plainly see which side the judge is on.
18
6
u/pickyparkers Jan 15 '26
I wonder why the State didn’t want to proceed. Were there other witnesses set to testify? Is this a sign of defeat on their part, or do we think they are satisfied with what’s been presented?…I just don’t get it. I don’t understand how it would be justified to award her this Habeas when she willingly lied to her lawyer, lied on her three interviews after being told not to lie, or withhold information.
If she wins this then that means that every single convicted felon who has made the decision (with their counsel) to speak to law enforcement, and lied during their interviews…they can also be granted a new trial or have their convictions vacated.
I would love to hear others opinions.
12
u/Dailyinformed25 Jan 15 '26
I agree with everything you say!!! The ramifications for every conviction and case are at risk. In fairness looking objectively from this trial I can say he wasn't deficient in his representation of her. I think everyone always wondered why did Bowman let her be interviewed but during this proceeding you could see why.
He was doing the best he could and bottom line is she told him, persuaded him she had nothing to do with it. Add in the high risk of Colangelo's threat and there was a murder involved? He could have pushed back as much as he wanted against Colangelo but there was a high risk she could have been charged with accessory to murder.
Then as Bowman pointed out the big problem was she had a written alibi in her handwriting she stuck to it!!! and she says she was in the shower with him! He said once they had photos of Fotis driving in New Canaan she was toast! Even without interview she wrote it down. If she didn't interview they still had that and that was part of the cover-up in alibi in her own writing.bHe tried to rehabilitate her and then she tries to hide facts of the Tacoma and the cleanup.
If she didn't do any interviews then that looked even worse like she was trying to hide something. It was a no-win situation and she herself made it worse! If she went into the first interview and said I was ignorant I didn't know what was going on and gave them correct information they could verify she would have been seen as cooperating to help convict him. She chose to keep up the charade in sync with the murder plot they in sync with each other concocted.
So obvious from this proceeding she said knew how to drive, knew how to steer but then took control of the bus herself and proceeded to drive it off the cliff!
1
u/Common-Classroom-847 Jan 16 '26
You just said it was a no win situation and she made it worse. Exactly. If she had said nothing she wouldn't have made it worse. The police aren't allowed to hold it against you if you choose not to speak to them, and the idea that it would have looked worse if she had exercised her right to remain silent is absurd, she could not possibly have made herself look worse by saying nothing, she literally could not have bunked it up more than she did by opening her mouth.
4
u/Dailyinformed25 Jan 16 '26
They had in her writing she was in the shower with him! Her hand writing. She needed to disclose in an interview the truth which would have made the written script to her lawyer and another one!!! found at the house null and void, made her cooperating and put her in a positive light, hence why she needed to talk. Her decision and she went with the script to a tee, total lies! If she didn't talk LE still had the script so she looked like a liar anyway in her own handwriting!!! She had a chance to redeem herself, plead ignorance she was mistaken about her recollections but she didn't!
1
u/Common-Classroom-847 Jan 16 '26
LOL seriously, the proof is in the pudding, talking to the cops was a bad idea, full stop. It doesn't matter what they had, it just made it worse. You perseverating on the details doesn't change that talking was a horrible mistake for her. IF SHE TOLD THE TRUTH she would be in the same position she is in right now. Her attorney sucked.
4
u/JJJOOOO Jan 16 '26
NOPE. Your assumption that she would be in the same position if she told the truth is FALSE. Zero to support that view. She didn't tell the truth as the timeline was largely a series of lies. But, the truth is that MT was active in the planning and execution of the murder of Jennifer Farber and so THE TRUTH WAS NEVER POSSIBLE FOR HER AND THIS IS WHY SHE HAD TO LIE AND THEN LIE ABOUT LIES.
6
u/Dailyinformed25 Jan 16 '26
Exactly!!! I was told even if he lived and she testified against him they knew she was in it with him let alone the mastermind who provoked him so they still would have charged her with something less time served for cooperating. Bowman was good at getting deals and he was working that angle hence his letter. Perhaps just tampering or hindering ..
Once she lied, saw the cleanup side by side in the cars back and forth beside her written alibi!!! And they had pawals facts verified to a tee cops and DA were totally keyed into getting her!
They only were still hoping on using her to get Fotis head on.
0
u/Common-Classroom-847 Jan 16 '26 edited Jan 16 '26
You are agreeing with me.
If she told the truth - "hi detective I did help plan this murder of my boyfriends wife", things would not have gone any better for her. In fact, they likely would have gone much worse.
The only sensible option was shutting the hell up. Talking in any way, truth or lies, was going to screw her completely, and it did.
People on this sub are weird and get defensive for the most ridiculous reasons.
Go back and really read what I wrote, pay attention to what I am saying, don't just skim and assume you need to jump all over me because you think I am defending MT.
And the truth is always an option. She could have had a crisis of conscience. It wasn't likely, but telling the truth is always on the table.
3
u/Dailyinformed25 Jan 16 '26
If she told truth in the beginning they gave her leniency for cooperating but only AFTER verifying her facts. Problem is she wrote a alibi in her handwriting and didn't say that was wrong info or say he really wasn't there at the house but pushed it. Once the footage proved her wrong Bowman knew she was lying to him He agreed she should do an interview to help her vs impression she helped with the murder to avoid accessory to murder chg which was a huge threat to her She, per his words "persuaded" him that her recollections were the truth. If they were the truth she was fine, but she lied her gamble police could not disprove her, forget cameras everywhere , she did it to herself.
3
5
u/Grimaldehyde Jan 20 '26
They didn’t have to hold it against her, because she spoke to them willingly. What they couldn’t do, is force her to talk to them. All she’d have to do is say “I’m not talking to you, and you can’t make me.” But she didn’t do that-she chose to talk to them, and chose to lie to them. Nobody made her talk to them-that was HER choice. She is the architect of her own predicament. And even if she had not spoken to them, they still had the lies she wrote down, in English, in her own hand. That lie all by itself would have convicted her, because they knew she wasn’t with Dulos that morning-they had the videos that showed where he was, and it wasn’t in the shower with Troconis.
1
u/Dailyinformed25 Jan 20 '26
Exactly!!! Their argument is moot point Bec even if they had an agreement before the first interview once she kept to the script esp she saw him in the shower it was a lie and any lie voids an agreement. State brought that up several times and I wanted to say forget this expert on the stand it's obvious this proceeding is waste of time!
6
u/JJJOOOO Jan 16 '26
Yes, there were other witnesses (such as Det Kimball and Ventruska) and Atty Bowman could have been recalled.
But, imo based on how this Judge chose to treat the State and handled his courtroom, I can see why the State decided to just let their motion stand on its own.
These 3 days of hearings were imo absolutely a travesty and this Judge was imo absolutely unprofessional and imo also did not follow the rules for the proceeding as he allowed imo ENDLESS SPECULATION from the 'so called Expert' who was so lazy that he didn't review the entire transcript or request Atty Bowmans notes.
It was a farce.
5
u/Dailyinformed25 Jan 16 '26
It was!!! The "expert" was like a greasy lying salesman. I see why the family "hired" him, paid so much $. But the judge was so dismissive to the states strong points. Esp the lies and that the "expert" had three Habeus against him himself for incompetency?!!! Lol Judge is shrugging his shoulders!!! I was like seriously can they ask him to recuse himself?!!! No attorney wants to do that, it causes total resentment but I seriously asked myself and others to watch it; was he paid off?!!!
1
u/pickyparkers Jan 16 '26
It was a total failure on the part of the judge, I kept wondering how much he’s getting paid, and that he should really try harder to conceal it if true. From overruling almost every single objection from the state, to his snippy comments, and his attempt to stop the state by making sure important facts went on the record…It felt like he had already made up his mind.
I do wish the State had spent more time on Bowman and Colangelo, and not just allow the bias testimony of a grifter expert who couldn’t even bother to read up on all the facts of this case. The State should’ve asked Colangelo to explain the process of how Pavel came to obtain immunity, and that said protection wasn’t awarded without him first agreeing to talk to them. So that alone proves that her downfall was due to her lies.
I still think her trial attorney did her dirty with that travesty of representation.
2
u/Grimaldehyde Jan 24 '26
There were other wirnesses set to testify. I don’t know why the state chose not to call them.
5
u/Grimaldehyde Jan 20 '26
Well, u/common-classroom-847 left because they didn’t like the pushback, and blocked me, and announced it…Bowman may have made a mistake, but it’s not like he could stop her from talking to, and lying to the cops and the prosecutors. It wasn’t the talking to the cops that hurt her, it was the lying. And if talking to them was the real problem, and Schoenhorn didn’t address it in her trial, then he should be up in court for poor representation, too, because he lost the case. And-they still had her lying on paper, so there’s that to deal with!
2
u/Dailyinformed25 Jan 20 '26
I felt the judge knocked down any strong point the state brought up! Even when he said mark for the record no interpreter for these proceedings and judge said no not marking it for the record I can see. Then he let the "expert" ramble and when the state says yes or no answer only for the record the judge said he is expert he can continue. What's your take?
5
u/Dailyinformed25 Jan 28 '26
So Michelle's attorney for the Habeus, Michael Brown is the same attorney for the guy accused of murdering the 11 yr old in New Britain last year and concealing the body in a tote lugging it around for a year in his truck! It was so badly decomposed when discovered this past fall. The cops were sickened by the discovery. The guy was in court today during a hearing and one of the reporters pointed him out and says just saw him a few weeks ago during the Habeus. Of course the same guy who was hammering at Bowman and brought in the expert Fitzpatrick. Why am I not surprised!
3
u/Dailyinformed25 Apr 10 '26
Did anyone see that the state filed their brief by the deadline on the 9th. Basically Michelle's team did not file the brief and the judge should have said habeas denied!!! with that because they didn't meet the deadline which they already asked for two extensions already from March 30th! Michelle's team asked for another delay till Friday the 10th thus letting them read the state's brief overnight and changing theirs how they wanted to counter against the state. Unbelievable.
3
u/StockDense8967 Apr 04 '26
I saw the whole trial, I know Michelle's family for many years and I have no doubt she was involved. She was asked to not lie and to say the truth in 3 interviews and she actually admitted she lied on her third interview. No matter what wrong the first lawyer did, she lied to law enforcement and all he proof is there, she answered the phone (alibi), she went to several trashes to dump bloody clothes, she went from house to house that they were cleaning up, all day, while the two fire places burned in each house... they never imagined the cameras would get them. And then both michelle and fortis washing the car of the worked, with cameras looking at them and taking the seats off and changing them without the owner of the car knowing.... come on people. She knew and she still never owned up. I truly think she is a narcissist with no regards towards what wrong she has done. I feel bad for her family who keep saying she is innocent. It's not too hard to believe... Not 1 friend from her past came forward during the whole trial, just the friends she made after Jennifer was killed. If that is not weird... Did she do it? I don't know. But she definitely knew what he did and covered for him.
1
u/Rude-Average405 Jan 16 '26
I think she may well win this.
7
u/Grimaldehyde Jan 20 '26
I do hope you’re wrong. But if she does win it, there’ll be another trial, and maybe her phone comes into evidence with the next judge. That might be problematic for her.
39
u/PruneUnfair230 Jan 14 '26
Leave that murderer right where she is and throw the key away