Speaker 1: On the morning of May twenty fourth, twenty nineteen, a
Speaker 1: woman dropped her five children off at school and returned home,
Speaker 1: just like she had done so many times before. But
Speaker 1: within a matter of hours, she vanished without a trace,
Speaker 1: leaving behind a house that suggested something had gone terribly
Speaker 1: wrong inside. As investigators began piecing together what happened, a
Speaker 1: timeline emerged that pointed not just to a disappearance, but
Speaker 1: to a carefully executed crime. And what followed was a
Speaker 1: case built on evidence, contradictions, and a question that still
Speaker 1: hasn't been answered. Where is Jennifer. This is the story
Speaker 1: of Jennifer Dulos.
Speaker 2: My name's Ben, I'm Nicole, and you're listening to Wicked
Speaker 2: and Grim, a true crime podcasting.
Speaker 1: The following podcast material in more mature audience listener discretion.
Speaker 1: I need to stop doom scrolling on my phone so bad.
Speaker 1: I spent so much time just scrolling today.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well it's pretty dang easy to do.
Speaker 1: It is. I just get sucked into this void and
Speaker 1: I hate it.
Speaker 2: I don't feel like I'm too bad, but often I'll
Speaker 2: go on like my photography page to look for something,
Speaker 2: and then ten minutes later, I'm like it's been scrolling
Speaker 2: and it's like, oh shit, what did I go on
Speaker 2: here to do? So if I go in there to
Speaker 2: look for something, I can get caught. But I don't
Speaker 2: feel like I tend to spend much time like doom scrolling.
Speaker 1: I think, like I don't have a problem with people
Speaker 1: consuming content. I like to consume content. I'm a content creator.
Speaker 1: I've spent time on social media.
Speaker 2: There's nothing wrong with it, but I think I need.
Speaker 1: To make it a little more intentional. It's this like
Speaker 1: just like stuff that's just crammed in your face, this
Speaker 1: perfect analytic creation that the machine feeds you. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: you just get in this zombie state.
Speaker 2: I think I don't spend a lot of time because
Speaker 2: if I have a hot minute to go on social
Speaker 2: I'm the person that then has like fifty million reels
Speaker 2: that have been sent to me, so then I have
Speaker 2: to go and watch those.
Speaker 1: They're almost sure they're usually sent to you by me too.
Speaker 2: Yeah sorry, yeah, mostly by you and then a couple
Speaker 2: friends and stuff. So if I have a minute to
Speaker 2: doom scroll, I'm probably just going and checking these messages
Speaker 2: that people sent me with their doom scrolling.
Speaker 1: Which is yeah, fair enough, but I do want to say,
Speaker 1: if you want to curate your content not rely on
Speaker 1: the algorithm, you should head over to our patreon. So
Speaker 1: you got some cool content over there, just like Jennifer Whitmore,
Speaker 1: Melissa Smith, Cherry Kay Jen, and Jessica Carver all did.
Speaker 1: They went over there, they signed up, they get the
Speaker 1: exclusive behind the scenes. And today as this episode is dropping,
Speaker 1: also an exclusive episode is dropping over there on Patreon.
Speaker 2: Two. Yeah, fantastic.
Speaker 1: You could be getting some more cool true crime content
Speaker 1: stories from us.
Speaker 2: You could get two on one day, which is pretty dope.
Speaker 1: That's like double the wickedness. H really is and it's
Speaker 1: not very grimp. Well, the stories might be, you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. Stories always are the stories are, and today, honestly,
Speaker 1: it's a little bit of a grim tail. Once again,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you're ready for this.
Speaker 2: I actually well, I was kind of listening to your intro,
Speaker 2: but I have no idea what the hell is going
Speaker 2: to happen, So well, let's do it.
Speaker 1: The intro I did leave it a little bit ambiguous.
Speaker 1: Try not to give too much away in the intros,
Speaker 1: because I've had some people tell me that I give
Speaker 1: too much away in the intros, so I'm trying to
Speaker 1: leave it a little bit more of a question mark
Speaker 1: hanging above it. If that makes sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Usually, if you read the description of the podcast, I
Speaker 1: give away a little bit more so if you, yeah,
Speaker 1: listen to the intro, read the description, you usually have
Speaker 1: a good, good feeling what the story's about. But I
Speaker 1: will say this one has a bit of a mystery
Speaker 1: still to the end of this story.
Speaker 2: Ah, I don't love that.
Speaker 1: It is a solved case though. Okay, there still a
Speaker 1: mystery to it.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, let's hear it.
Speaker 1: Well, most people don't end up in a completely different
Speaker 1: life overnight. It usually happens slowly. Things change a little
Speaker 1: bit at a time, and you adjust as you go.
Speaker 1: You get used to certain conversations or certain patterns and
Speaker 1: different tensions and things in your life, and before long,
Speaker 1: it just becomes a new part of your normal day
Speaker 1: to day. You still go to work, you still take
Speaker 1: care of your family, showing up where you need to be.
Speaker 1: The routines are all there. It's not like there's a
Speaker 1: single moment where everything clearly falls apart. It's more like
Speaker 1: a gradual shift that only really makes sense when you're
Speaker 1: the one living inside of it. At some point, though,
Speaker 1: you start to realize that things aren't settling back into
Speaker 1: place like they should be. The same issues keep coming up,
Speaker 1: the same feelings stick around, and you might try to
Speaker 1: ignore it for a while or convince yourself it's temporary,
Speaker 1: but eventually it gets harder for you to do that.
Speaker 1: You start thinking about what it would actually mean to
Speaker 1: make a change, and whether that's even something you can do,
Speaker 1: And when you finally decide that you are in fact
Speaker 1: going to move forward, it feels very practical and even necessary,
Speaker 1: like something just had to happen, even if it's uncomfortable
Speaker 1: or uncertain. It's a situation a lot of people can
Speaker 1: relate in many ways, trying to move forward, trying to
Speaker 1: make the right decision, and hoping that once you do,
Speaker 1: things will start getting better from there. In some cases,
Speaker 1: those changes, even if they are made for the right reason,
Speaker 1: they can lead to deadly results. In the late morning
Speaker 1: on May twenty fourth, twenty nineteen, things should have been
Speaker 1: very routine, just another week day, with the school drop
Speaker 1: offs being done and the house becoming a little quieter
Speaker 1: once again. When the nanny pulled into the driveway at
Speaker 1: Jennifer Dulo's home in this story in New Canon, Connecticut,
Speaker 1: about an hour northeast of New York City. Nothing seemed
Speaker 1: at a place. The house looked the same as it
Speaker 1: always did, but as she walked inside, small details started
Speaker 1: to feel off. Jennifer, for example, wasn't there at first.
Speaker 1: That alone wasn't alarming. She could have stepped out or
Speaker 1: gone to run some errands or something. But then her
Speaker 1: purse was still inside, and her phone wasn't being answered,
Speaker 1: And there was even a cup of coffee that was
Speaker 1: still left sitting there untouched. And then there were paper
Speaker 1: towels they were nearly gone. It wasn't one single thing,
Speaker 1: it was everything altogether. You know, the kind of feeling
Speaker 1: you can explain right away, but you know something isn't
Speaker 1: right when these things start to not add up. Now,
Speaker 1: before anything really felt wrong, before the eventual investigation and headlines,
Speaker 1: In fact, Jennifer Dulos had built a life that looked
Speaker 1: almost ideal to many. She was born Jennifer Farber in
Speaker 1: New York City in nineteen sixty eight into a wealthy
Speaker 1: and well connected family. Her father was a successful banker,
Speaker 1: her mother deeply involved in philanthropy and Jennifer grew up
Speaker 1: surrounded by opportunity, but the people who knew her didn't
Speaker 1: describe her in terms of money or status. They described
Speaker 1: her as thoughtful and creative, someone who paid attention to
Speaker 1: people in ways that made them feel seen. She went
Speaker 1: to Brown University, where she focused on writing, as it
Speaker 1: was something she cared deeply about. She wrote plays, she
Speaker 1: wrote essays, and later kept a blog where she shared
Speaker 1: pieces of her life, often centered around her children. She
Speaker 1: had a way of capturing small, everyday moments and turning
Speaker 1: them into something very meaningful. That was the life she wanted,
Speaker 1: not just success, but connection, family, and a home that
Speaker 1: felt full now. During her time at Brown University, that
Speaker 1: is where she met a man by the name of
Speaker 1: Potus Dulos. At the time, nothing came of their relationship.
Speaker 1: Their lives moved in different directions for years. But later
Speaker 1: and in the early two thousands, they reconnected, and this
Speaker 1: time things moved rather quickly. They fell head over heels
Speaker 1: for one another, and they got married in two thousand
Speaker 1: and four. Soon after that, they settled into a large
Speaker 1: home in Farmington, Connecticut. Over the next several years, they
Speaker 1: had five children together, and Jennifer stepped into the role
Speaker 1: of a full time mother, raising them in a life
Speaker 1: that seemed to have everything, space, security, opportunity, and most
Speaker 1: importantly love, and for a while it worked like a
Speaker 1: picture of the ideal happily ever after type life. She
Speaker 1: wrote about her kids often, things like their personalities and routines,
Speaker 1: and of course the little things that made them who
Speaker 1: they were. Her life became centered around them and it
Speaker 1: was everything she had ever wanted. But inside that life,
Speaker 1: things weren't as stable as they seemed. At first. The
Speaker 1: changes were subtle, nothing you could point to right away
Speaker 1: and say that's the moment that everything went wrong kind
Speaker 1: of thing. It was much more slower, and it was
Speaker 1: more of a gradual shift now. Fotus he had always
Speaker 1: been very ambitious. He built his career developing high end
Speaker 1: homes through his company for group, and he had an
Speaker 1: image that mattered to him. You know, how things looked
Speaker 1: and how he appeared from the outside. He had success,
Speaker 1: control and presentation to worry about. It was all part
Speaker 1: of it. Now. In the beginning, that drive felt like confidence,
Speaker 1: but it started to feel very different. With more time
Speaker 1: than passed. He was gone a lot. He was focused
Speaker 1: on work, a lot and on projects and maintaining a
Speaker 1: certain lifestyle, and as that part of his life expanded,
Speaker 1: Jennifer's world seemed to shrink smaller and smaller. She was
Speaker 1: at home, raising their five children, managing everything that came
Speaker 1: with it, and the balance between the two of them
Speaker 1: began to tilt, and with it came tension. There were
Speaker 1: ongoing arguments that didn't seem to resolve, with moments where
Speaker 1: things escalated further than they should have, with his behavior
Speaker 1: seemed to become more controlling and more intense. There were
Speaker 1: instances where he would become angry very quickly, and situations
Speaker 1: turned rather confrontational. Jennifer started to feel something. She didn't
Speaker 1: always say it outright, but in the way she wrote,
Speaker 1: in the way she described her life, that's where the
Speaker 1: hints were. A sense that things in Wonderland, if you will,
Speaker 1: weren't stable, a sense that something underneath the surface wasn't correct.
Speaker 1: And as time went on, that feeling didn't go away,
Speaker 1: it only grew. Now by twenty seventeen, the marriage had
Speaker 1: already been understrained, but it hadn't fully broken apart. But
Speaker 1: that changed when Fotus told Jennifer that he had been
Speaker 1: having an affair.
Speaker 2: Okay, I don't know why, but I wasn't expecting that the.
Speaker 1: Woman he was seeing was someone named Michelle to Connus,
Speaker 1: and she had quickly become a central person in his life.
Speaker 2: Oh I hate that.
Speaker 1: Now this turmoil and infidelity wasn't something that stayed hidden
Speaker 1: and wasn't privately handled exactly. The relationship became very obvious
Speaker 1: and the situation between them was growing rather difficult. At
Speaker 1: one point, Fotus even actually suggested that his girlfriend, Michelle, well,
Speaker 1: his home wrecker of a girlfriend, I should actually say,
Speaker 1: he suggested that she should move into the house them,
Speaker 1: proposing that they all continue living together under one roof.
Speaker 2: Like he wants to live with his wife, girlfriend and
Speaker 2: his five kids under one roof.
Speaker 1: Correct, So we had got the shit. He has a
Speaker 1: home with his wife and five kids, and he's like, hey,
Speaker 1: what if my girlfriend.
Speaker 2: Moves in nobody That's not how it works, right, It
Speaker 2: just you can't have the best of both worlds there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So it was a suggestion that clearly made it
Speaker 1: obvious how far things had moved and it was not
Speaker 1: something that was resembling a functional marriage for Jennifer.
Speaker 2: Okay, that makes me angry. That even that suggestion.
Speaker 1: There, with that suggestion, she knew this was a very
Speaker 1: clear line that was being marked. So whatever remained between
Speaker 1: the two of them, it was obviously officially over. And
Speaker 1: so in June of twenty seventeen she made the decision
Speaker 1: to leave. So she packed up her five children and
Speaker 1: moved out of that Farmington home and relocated to New Canon, Connecticut,
Speaker 1: and the following day she filed for divorce. Now what
Speaker 1: stood out in that filing wasn't just that the marriage
Speaker 1: had ended, but how she described it. See, Jennifer detailed
Speaker 1: what she believed had been a pattern of escalating behavior
Speaker 1: from her husband, Fotus. She described him as irrational, unsafe,
Speaker 1: and very controlling, especially increasingly so. Not to mention, she
Speaker 1: made it clear that she was actually afraid, not just
Speaker 1: of the situation, but what he might do. In this situation.
Speaker 1: She wrote that she believed filing for divorce would enrage
Speaker 1: him and that he would retaliate by trying to harm
Speaker 1: her in some way. This wasn't something written casually. I
Speaker 1: want to make that clear. It was very direct, a
Speaker 1: statement of concern documented in court filings. This is with
Speaker 1: her divorce papers. There were also specific incidents that were
Speaker 1: referenced and included. She alleged that he had purchased a gun,
Speaker 1: that he had threatened to take the children, and that
Speaker 1: during one confrontation, he even followed her into a room,
Speaker 1: blocked the exit, and physically intimidated her as she tried
Speaker 1: to leave. Now, Fotus, of course, denied that all of
Speaker 1: that actually occurred. He said that he had never threatened her,
Speaker 1: that he had never acted in a way that was
Speaker 1: dangerous or controlling whatsoever. Instead, he framed the situation as
Speaker 1: a breakdown in communication rather than something serious as what
Speaker 1: Jennifer was alleging. Now, from what he said, the focus
Speaker 1: should remain on maintaining a relationship for the sake of
Speaker 1: the children. But by that point, Jennifer was no longer
Speaker 1: trying to preserve anything as far as a relationship goes.
Speaker 1: She was focused on leaving and protecting herself and her
Speaker 1: children first.
Speaker 2: Well, fair enough, because he started that with the affair
Speaker 2: exactly right. He made that decision that they were not
Speaker 2: going to be moving forward in this for the sake
Speaker 2: of the kids.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he drew a line where the family was and
Speaker 1: he was trying to reshape it in a way that
Speaker 1: he wanted not what works in a marriage, right, a
Speaker 1: marriage you worked together. He was not working together. He
Speaker 1: was working for the sake of himself. Yeah, so with
Speaker 1: that comes separation. Now what followed from there was not
Speaker 1: a clean or quiet divorce. It quickly became something far
Speaker 1: more drawn out and even aggressive, you could say, stretching
Speaker 1: over months and then years, with both sides locking into
Speaker 1: legal battle that showed no signs of slowing down. At
Speaker 1: the center of this divorce was, of course, the custody
Speaker 1: battle over the kids. Initially, the court granted shared custody
Speaker 1: of the five children while the divorce proceedings move forward,
Speaker 1: but almost immediately Jennifer pushed for full custody, arguing that
Speaker 1: Photus' behavior made it unsafe for the kids to be
Speaker 1: in his care without any supervision. The whole thing started
Speaker 1: as a dispute over parenting arrangements, but quickly it turned
Speaker 1: into another prolonged fight, with filings, counter filings, and motions
Speaker 1: tot up over time. By the end, there were hundreds
Speaker 1: of court documents tied to this case, making it one
Speaker 1: of the most contentious divorces in Connecticut at the time. Now,
Speaker 1: as the legal proceedings unfolded. The whole situation became increasingly
Speaker 1: restrictive for fotus, and eventually Jennifer was granted sole custody
Speaker 1: of the children and his access was limited to supervised visitations.
Speaker 1: Now that was very significant, because not only had the
Speaker 1: marriage ended, but his role in the children's daily lives
Speaker 1: had been reduced in a very public and legal way
Speaker 1: to be enforced to well down to the bare minimum.
Speaker 1: At the same time, the financial pressure on him was building.
Speaker 1: Jennifer's family had previously supported his business ventures, including his
Speaker 1: real estate development company, and so the relationship began to
Speaker 1: deteriorate there as well, and that support actually turned into
Speaker 1: a legal dispute in its own self.
Speaker 2: Oh Goodness's okay, that makes it even more messy.
Speaker 1: It does, so soon a lawsuit was filed seeking repayment
Speaker 1: of millions of dollars, adding to a whole nother layer
Speaker 1: of pressure on top of the already unstable situation.
Speaker 2: But honestly, that's not surprising. Of course, they would probably
Speaker 2: support their daughter, right why not? So it makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's what happens in separations. Separations occur,
Speaker 1: but there's a lot more things tied to relationships finances,
Speaker 1: children's children's children, businesses, all these sort of things, companies.
Speaker 1: It gets messy.
Speaker 2: It's almost surprising that he didn't think that's true.
Speaker 1: I guess, but well, lots of time people don't.
Speaker 2: They don't.
Speaker 1: So now his finances were strained, and the legal cost
Speaker 1: from the divorce only made things worse. When it came
Speaker 1: to the court proceedings themselves, they were very intense. There
Speaker 1: were multiple legal teams involved, repeated hearings and moments where
Speaker 1: the conflict between Jennifer and Fotus played direct out in
Speaker 1: front of the judge, and at one point, after dismissing
Speaker 1: his attorney, Fotus even chose to represent himself in court,
Speaker 1: and that decision allowed him to personally question Jennifer under oath,
Speaker 1: turning what was a very tense process into another confrontation
Speaker 1: wide open in court. Now. During one of these early hearings,
Speaker 1: the judge overseeing the case actually took a very unusual step.
Speaker 1: After listening to hours of testimony, he paused the proceedings
Speaker 1: and he spoke directly to both Jennifer and Fotus. He
Speaker 1: acknowledged that they were very intelligent and capable people with
Speaker 1: resources and opportunities that many families didn't have, and he
Speaker 1: warned them about the direction of things and how they
Speaker 1: were headed. He told them in very simple terms that
Speaker 1: if they couldn't find a way to resolve these things themselves,
Speaker 1: the court would of course continue to step in, and
Speaker 1: that process would only make things harder, not easier. He
Speaker 1: urged them to consider how the situation would even affect
Speaker 1: their children, and what it would look like from the
Speaker 1: outside if those children were sitting in the courtroom watching
Speaker 1: this unfold for themselves. It was a moment that, in hindsight,
Speaker 1: felt like a warning, but unfortunately nothing changed.
Speaker 2: I'm just sitting here, though, and how you described this
Speaker 2: judge having to sit there for hours listening to this, right,
Speaker 2: that must be the one of the least fun jobs
Speaker 2: out there. I feel that would just be hell.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're being a mediator between two individuals who are
Speaker 1: doing he said, She said.
Speaker 2: Yeah, who are hating each other. And oh, I just
Speaker 2: think it would give you a headache by the end
Speaker 2: of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think the judge basically wanted them to
Speaker 1: just like suck it up, get this over with and
Speaker 1: move on with your lives already. I just picture like, like,
Speaker 1: you know, like a kindergarten teacher listening to two kids
Speaker 1: argue over at the playground over who's juice boxes who's
Speaker 1: and the teachers just like, I don't fucking care.
Speaker 2: Oh, I just think I would hate that. But honestly,
Speaker 2: I think that it's fairly common, right, I mean, there's
Speaker 2: a lot of emotions going into ending a relationship, and
Speaker 2: especially when you have kids involved in stuff, So I
Speaker 2: kind of get it, but I'm just like, that would
Speaker 2: just be hell to have to sit there and listen.
Speaker 1: To all of that, definitely. So there's it makes sense,
Speaker 1: Like you say, a lot of emotions and everything, but
Speaker 1: you've got to try and find the line, the common ground,
Speaker 1: if you will, and that common ground is it's very
Speaker 1: hard for people to find, especially when you have very
Speaker 1: messy situations like finances, like companies, like children in the picture. Now,
Speaker 1: if anything, this conflict only continued to escalate. The filings continued,
Speaker 1: the accusations continued, and what was supposed to be just
Speaker 1: a divorce had turned into a prolonged fight over control
Speaker 1: over the children, finances, and how the story would ultimately
Speaker 1: be told. And as the pressure continued to build, it
Speaker 1: created a situation that was just all unstable, as if
Speaker 1: everything was being pushed towards a breaking point that hadn't
Speaker 1: quite happened yet, but that pressure that was building, it
Speaker 1: was getting closer and closer to breaking.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: On May twenty fourth, twenty nineteen, it didn't begin with
Speaker 1: anything out of the ordinary, at least not from Jennifer's
Speaker 1: point of view. She woke up, she got her children
Speaker 1: ready for the day, and followed the same routine she'd
Speaker 1: done countless times before that. It was just before eight
Speaker 1: am when she left her home in New Cannon and
Speaker 1: drove them to school. At around seven to fifty eight am,
Speaker 1: she dropped her children off, and a few minutes later,
Speaker 1: just after eight am, she returned home. That moment, when
Speaker 1: she pulled back into her driveway would later become the
Speaker 1: last confirmed sighting of Jennifer. Now. Earlier that morning, more
Speaker 1: than an hour before she returned home, a red Toyota
Speaker 1: Tacoma had left a property connected to Potus in Farmington. Now,
Speaker 1: the vehicle did belonged to him directly, In fact, it
Speaker 1: was from an employee of his, But we'll touch on
Speaker 1: that vehicle a bit later. At approximately seven point thirty
Speaker 1: one am, Surveillance footage from that area near Jennifer's home
Speaker 1: captured a figure riding a bicycle in the direction of
Speaker 1: her street. Now, that doesn't stand out. People ride bikes
Speaker 1: all their time, especially early morning right getting your exercise. Yea,
Speaker 1: so it wasn't unusual. But later, when the investigators began
Speaker 1: reviewing the timeline, that detail it stuck out. But again
Speaker 1: we'll get to that. By the time Jennifer arrived back
Speaker 1: at her home just after eight am, whoever had been
Speaker 1: moving through the area earlier that morning was already there waiting,
Speaker 1: and sometime within the next two hours, between approximately eight
Speaker 1: h five am and ten twenty five AM, something happened
Speaker 1: inside her house, something that would shift everything. At ten
Speaker 1: twenty five am, Jennifer's black Shae Chevrolet Suburban was seen
Speaker 1: leaving the property. However, she wasn't driving it now. By
Speaker 1: the time the nanny arrived at the house later that morning,
Speaker 1: it was around eleven thirty am. As she pulled into
Speaker 1: the driveway, the house looked the same as it always did.
Speaker 1: It was quiet, but not unusual for that time a
Speaker 1: day with the kid's gone. Inside, though, things didn't feel right.
Speaker 1: Jennifer wasn't there like she usually was, which you know,
Speaker 1: it's not cause for alarm at first. Could be you know,
Speaker 1: her stepping out for the day or doing an errand
Speaker 1: especially after finishing dropping kids off at school, who knows.
Speaker 1: But that's when the details began to stack up. Her
Speaker 1: purse was still inside the house, there was a cup
Speaker 1: of coffee that would have been left sitting there, and
Speaker 1: it was untouched. And when the nanny tried to reach her,
Speaker 1: there was no response, no call back, no message, nothing.
Speaker 1: There were also signs that something had been used quickly,
Speaker 1: in large amounts. Paper towel, which was normally stocked in
Speaker 1: the house, well, it was nearly gone. It wasn't something
Speaker 1: that made sense on its own, but in the context
Speaker 1: of everything else, it added to the feeling that something
Speaker 1: had happened. It didn't quite fit the normal morning routine.
Speaker 1: The longer the nanny went without any response from Jennifer,
Speaker 1: the harder it became to explain these things away. See,
Speaker 1: Jennifer was someone who stayed very connected, especially when it
Speaker 1: came to her children. She didn't just disappear without letting
Speaker 1: someone know where she was. She didn't leave her belongings
Speaker 1: behind and ignore calls. So by early afternoon, concern had
Speaker 1: set in A call was soon placed and the situation
Speaker 1: was reported to police. At first, the situation was treated
Speaker 1: as a missing person's case. There was, however, still a possibility,
Speaker 1: at least early on, that Jennifer had left on her own,
Speaker 1: that there was some explanation that hadn't surfaced yet, But
Speaker 1: that possibility began to disappear as soon as investigators stepped
Speaker 1: inside the home and made their way into the garage.
Speaker 1: What they found there shifted the direction of the case.
Speaker 1: Immediately inside, officers found blood, a lot of it, and
Speaker 1: I mean a lot of it. It certainly wasn't minimal
Speaker 1: by any means, and it was very clear it wasn't accidental. However,
Speaker 1: it had been cleaned well enough that you may not
Speaker 1: notice it at first glance, but it was certainly there. Now.
Speaker 1: The blood covered an extensive area. It was found across
Speaker 1: multiple surfaces, on the garage floor, along the walls, and
Speaker 1: on the door leading into the house. It wasn't even
Speaker 1: contained to that just one area. It wasn't something that
Speaker 1: could be explained by a minor injury either or an
Speaker 1: isolated event. Forensic experts were in fact soon called in
Speaker 1: and they tested the blood, and DNA testing confirmed that
Speaker 1: the blood belonged to Jennifer.
Speaker 2: Mmm, okay, which is expected, but holy moly.
Speaker 1: Now, forensics also confirmed that there were patterns in what
Speaker 1: was left behind, Signs in the blood that something had
Speaker 1: happened quickly and whatever followed involved movement, perhaps a prolonged struggle.
Speaker 1: Areas had of course been wiped down, and attempts to
Speaker 1: clean the scene were very visible, but they hadn't been
Speaker 1: enough to remove the evidence entirely, which of course explains
Speaker 1: that missing paper towel. But then there was one detail
Speaker 1: that stood apart from everything else. On the kitchen faucet,
Speaker 1: investigators found a mixture of blood. It was confirmed to
Speaker 1: be a combination of both Jennifer's blood and someone else's. Now,
Speaker 1: this suggested that whoever had been involved in what happened
Speaker 1: in the garage had sustained an injury as well, even
Speaker 1: if it was just minor. Then they proceeded into the
Speaker 1: house to clean themselves up in the kitchen sink and
Speaker 1: accidentally left their DNA behind, and that's someone else. Well.
Speaker 1: The DNA was confirmed to be that of her ex husband, Fotus.
Speaker 2: It was hey, oh my goodness, this is just brutal.
Speaker 1: Now. It was a small piece of evidence compared to
Speaker 1: the rest of the crime. But of course, this being
Speaker 1: someone else's DNA, it carried a lot of weight. It
Speaker 1: placed him inside the home in a physical, measurable way
Speaker 1: connected to the same event that left so much blood behind. Now,
Speaker 1: remember this is not his house. This is Jennifer's place.
Speaker 1: This is where she divorced him and moved to.
Speaker 2: She moved away from the house.
Speaker 1: Okay, exactly, so there's much less reason for his DNA
Speaker 1: to be there.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it shouldn't be there at all.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, at that point, the investigation was no longer
Speaker 1: about finding someone who might have left voluntarily. The condition
Speaker 1: of the garage made that extremely unlikely. The amount of blood,
Speaker 1: in fact, made it impossible to ignore what it suggested,
Speaker 1: and investigators began working under a different assumption that Jennifer
Speaker 1: hadn't simply disappeared, but that she had likely been killed
Speaker 1: and that Photus was somehow involved.
Speaker 2: This is always so hard to understand because this is
Speaker 2: the regard of the beef that you have with her, Like,
Speaker 2: this is the mother of your kids, So it just
Speaker 2: doesn't make any sense that you go about harming them,
Speaker 2: because like your kids obviously love her and meet her
Speaker 2: so what what the hell are you doing?
Speaker 1: You're harming more people than just the person you're targeting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then also, buddy, are you stupid because you're
Speaker 2: very much so going to be the first one everyone
Speaker 2: looks at.
Speaker 1: Right obviously, Now, I do want to mention forensics Also,
Speaker 1: they found with the amount of blood left behind, that
Speaker 1: without immediate medical attention, Jennifer wouldn't likely not survive really,
Speaker 1: and there were no reports of her seeing or receiving
Speaker 1: any sort of medical attention whatsoever.
Speaker 2: So yeah, okay, that's devastating.
Speaker 1: Now, investigators started reconstructing the morning of May twenty fourth
Speaker 1: as best as they could, looking at vehicle movements, surveillance footage,
Speaker 1: and phone activity. The goal wasn't to jump to any
Speaker 1: sort of conclusion, but to understand what had actually happened,
Speaker 1: you know, step by step, following the evidence and let
Speaker 1: it tell the story. And those steps were laid out
Speaker 1: and inconsistencies began to appear. Now, the suburban leaving Jennifer's
Speaker 1: home at ten twenty five am became a very central
Speaker 1: piece of this timeline. If she hadn't been seen after
Speaker 1: returning home just after eight am, then whoever had driven
Speaker 1: that vehicle had to have had access to the house,
Speaker 1: but the question was who could have been there during
Speaker 1: that window of time. Up to this point, the investigation
Speaker 1: had been building very slowly. Investigators were working through the timeline,
Speaker 1: examining the home, trying to understand what had happened inside
Speaker 1: that garage. There were strong indications that a violent incident
Speaker 1: had taken place, yes, of course, but there was still
Speaker 1: a need to connect the events to something more concrete
Speaker 1: outside the house, and that connection came later that same
Speaker 1: day through surveillance footage in Hartford. Now, on the evening
Speaker 1: of May twenty fourth, between approximately seven point thirty and
Speaker 1: eight pm, cameras captured a red Toyota Ta Coma moving
Speaker 1: through several areas of the city. The vehicle stopped multiple
Speaker 1: times along a relatively short route. At each stop, the
Speaker 1: driver would pull over near a trash bin, step out
Speaker 1: of the vehicle, and place a black garbage bag inside
Speaker 1: before continuing on to the next one. Now, of course,
Speaker 1: people throw away garbage every day all the time, but
Speaker 1: the number of stops, the spacing between them, and the
Speaker 1: deliberate nature of the movement suggested it was not a routine.
Speaker 2: Errand yeah, that's very ominous.
Speaker 1: It instead seemed much more methodical, as though the contents
Speaker 1: of those bags were being distributed intentionally rather than discarded
Speaker 1: in a single location. So they're spreading them out, trying
Speaker 1: to hide something likely. Now, as investigators reviewed that footage
Speaker 1: more closely, they identified the driver, and that was photus.
Speaker 2: Of course it was. You know, I don't know why
Speaker 2: my brain should have already predicted so much on this,
Speaker 2: I feel like, but I'm just sitting here a lot
Speaker 2: of on my own little world. And clearly he freaking
Speaker 2: dismembered her body, well, the bags and now is disposing
Speaker 2: of it.
Speaker 1: Here's the thing, though, there was someone else on that
Speaker 1: footage too, Oh okay, there was someone sitting in the
Speaker 1: passenger seat of that red Toyota Tacoma and it was
Speaker 1: Michelle traconis his new girlfriend.
Speaker 2: Freck. Of course, it was now that.
Speaker 1: Immediately connected the activity in Hartford back to everything that
Speaker 1: had already been discovered earlier in that day. Investigators quickly
Speaker 1: began recovering the bags from each of the dumpsters at
Speaker 1: every single location seen on the camera, and what they
Speaker 1: found inside provided one of the cleanest links in the
Speaker 1: case so far. Now, unlike what you thought the contents were.
Speaker 1: In this case, the contents actually included items directly connected
Speaker 1: to Jennifer and the events that had taken place that morning,
Speaker 1: but not body part.
Speaker 2: Okay, so like wads of bloody paper towel maybe, Yeah,
Speaker 2: there were.
Speaker 1: Things like bloody clothing, things that had been cut apart,
Speaker 1: cleaning materials, tips, some paper towel, gloves, zip ties. All
Speaker 1: these things and several of these items were stained with
Speaker 1: crimson red blood, and DNA showed that it was in
Speaker 1: fact Jennifer's blood. Investigators also recovered altered license plates associated
Speaker 1: with her vehicle, indicating that the steps were taken again
Speaker 1: to disguise or conceal things and movements earlier that day too.
Speaker 1: The evidence from the garage was huge, and the evidence
Speaker 1: from the dumpster equally so, and it all showed that
Speaker 1: a violent event had indeed occurred, But the recovery of
Speaker 1: these items demonstrated that there was very much so a
Speaker 1: specific effort to try and dispose of material that were
Speaker 1: connected to the events, hiding what had happened, which means
Speaker 1: what happened inside that home did not end there. It
Speaker 1: continued outside into the world. But thankfully, instead of eliminating evidence,
Speaker 1: those actions created a clear picture of the truth, and
Speaker 1: they were thankfully recovered now. In the early stages of
Speaker 1: the case, there had been an effort to already establish
Speaker 1: where photos had been during that critical window of that morning.
Speaker 1: The evidence coming in with the security cameras, the DNA
Speaker 1: and everything else were very fantastic, yes, but they were
Speaker 1: already looking into him before all this came out now.
Speaker 1: At first, there were elements and evidence that appeared to
Speaker 1: place him away from new Canon, things like phone activity,
Speaker 1: movements tied to his property in Farmington, and other details.
Speaker 1: It seemed to suggest he had been elsewhere when Jennifer
Speaker 1: returned home, establishing a very possible alibi. But those details
Speaker 1: were examined more closely and the consistency began to break
Speaker 1: down fast. One of the key pieces of that investigators
Speaker 1: focused on was his phone activity. Records showed that his
Speaker 1: phone had been active in ways that showed normal movements
Speaker 1: and use during the time that Jennifer was believed to
Speaker 1: have been attacked. However, as interviews progressed and additional information
Speaker 1: came forward, it became clear that those records did not
Speaker 1: necessarily reflect his actual location, and investigators determined that his
Speaker 1: phone had not been in his possession the entire time.
Speaker 1: In fact, evidence showed that his girlfriend, Michelle, had been
Speaker 1: using his phone during key parts of that morning, so
Speaker 1: by making calls and sending messages, she had created a
Speaker 1: digital trail that gave the impression that photos was somewhere else,
Speaker 1: creating a false alibi. And at the same time, other
Speaker 1: inconsistencies began to emerge in Michelle's own statements that were
Speaker 1: being taken see during multiple interviews with investigators, her account
Speaker 1: of that day changed. Details about where she had seen Fotus,
Speaker 1: where he had been, and what they had done together
Speaker 1: did not remain consistent from one version to the next.
Speaker 1: In some instants, she even later acknowledged that earlier statements
Speaker 1: she had made were not accurate. Now other important discoveries
Speaker 1: added to that shift, and one was when investigators recovered
Speaker 1: handwritten notes that outlined a version of events that day.
Speaker 1: These notes, often referred to as alibi scripts, appeared to
Speaker 1: organize a timeline that matched in most parts what Michelle
Speaker 1: had told investigators. Some elements of the timeline aligned with
Speaker 1: known facts, others didn't, and the presence of these notes,
Speaker 1: what they suggested was that the account had been presented
Speaker 1: and planned that it was a rehearsed timeline of events.
Speaker 2: Okay, that makes them well, I mean they're already in
Speaker 2: deep shit, but that makes it a little bit worse.
Speaker 1: Exactly, So, the policer are questioning her and she's giving
Speaker 1: a story of events, and they find this paper that
Speaker 1: they had prepared, already written out like a grocery list
Speaker 1: of what they're going to tell police. Was their story?
Speaker 2: Huh? And clearly though, she doesn't really do the best
Speaker 2: under pressure, for just the fact that her story is
Speaker 2: like periodically changing and it's not completely the same each time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's very true.
Speaker 2: So she couldn't have probably planned for that, right, not
Speaker 2: knowing exactly how intense it would be being questioned by
Speaker 2: the police when you actually are a guilty piece of shit.
Speaker 1: Well, if you're a home wrecker to start with, I
Speaker 1: have a feeling you're someone who can't really keep stories straight.
Speaker 1: You just are used to getting your way and getting
Speaker 1: away with things. So she's probably just like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I got this, And in reality, when she's actually questioned,
Speaker 1: actually pressured, that's when you know, those inconsistencies the bullshit
Speaker 1: comes to surface. So now, of course, by the time
Speaker 1: investigators reached this point, they were no longer working with
Speaker 1: isolated pieces of evidence. The timeline had been built, the
Speaker 1: physical evidence had been analyzed, and the inconsistencies and the
Speaker 1: alibi were already being idea. What they needed to do now, though,
Speaker 1: was to put those elements together into a sequence that
Speaker 1: explained what had likely happened from start to finish, and
Speaker 1: hopefully from there they could essentially reverse engineer where they
Speaker 1: could find Jennifer now. Investigators believed that Potus left Farmington
Speaker 1: before sunrise in that red Toyota Tacoma that had been
Speaker 1: borrowed from one of his employees. At some point, he
Speaker 1: made his way towards New Canon, parking the vehicle away
Speaker 1: from Jennifer's home to avoid drawing attention from there. They
Speaker 1: believed he approached the area on bicycle, which aligned with
Speaker 1: surveillance footage captured earlier that morning showing a rider heading
Speaker 1: towards her street, and by the time Jennifer arrived home
Speaker 1: at eight am, he was already there waiting. According to
Speaker 1: the reconstruction, he had entered the property and waited, and
Speaker 1: when Jennifer pulled into the garage and exited her vehicle,
Speaker 1: the attack occurred. Shortly after. Based on the evidence found
Speaker 1: at the scene, investigators believed she was overpowered quickly. Zip
Speaker 1: ties were likely used to restrain her, and the extent
Speaker 1: of the blood indicated that the injuries she sustained were severe.
Speaker 1: Investigators believed that after the attack, he cleaned up some
Speaker 1: of the scene in the garage. Paper towels were used
Speaker 1: in large quantities, and areas of the scene had been
Speaker 1: wiped down, though not nearly thoroughly enough to remove the evidence. Then,
Speaker 1: once the process was done, attention to turn towards removing
Speaker 1: Jennifer from the property. The reconstruction then placed her inside
Speaker 1: her own vehicle, the suburban, which was then driven away
Speaker 1: from the house at ten twenty five a m. That
Speaker 1: movement aligned with surveillance footage showing the vehicle leaving the
Speaker 1: property during that window. Now, at some point after leaving Buchanan,
Speaker 1: investigators believed that Jennifer was transferred from that suburban into
Speaker 1: the Toyota to Coma. That red truck that was borrowed
Speaker 1: and the suburbs was then abandoned near Wavennee Park, where
Speaker 1: it was later recovered. The Tacoma meanwhile continued moving. Later
Speaker 1: that day, a surveillance footage would show it was used
Speaker 1: during the series of stops in Hartford, where the items
Speaker 1: connected to the crime scene were disposed of in those
Speaker 1: garbage bags, things including the bloody clothing, the cleaning materials,
Speaker 1: and so on so forth. Investigators also identified additional steps
Speaker 1: that suggested there was an effort to eliminate more evidence.
Speaker 1: The Toyota Tacoma was later cleaned, including a paid car wash,
Speaker 1: and parts of the interior were altered, including the replacements
Speaker 1: of seats, but still, despite those efforts, traces of Jennifer's
Speaker 1: blood were still recovered from the vehicle as well. Now,
Speaker 1: taken together, the reconstruction provided a very continuous sequence of
Speaker 1: events connected the early morning movements, the attacks inside the garage,
Speaker 1: and the removal of Jennifer from her own home, plus
Speaker 1: the disposal of evidence later that day. What it did
Speaker 1: not provide, unfortunately, was a final location. And despite the
Speaker 1: details of the reconstruction, and despite the amounts of evidence recovered,
Speaker 1: Jennifer herself was never found.
Speaker 2: Seriously, her body has never been found.
Speaker 1: Jennifer has never been found. Her remains have never been found.
Speaker 2: Like you're telling me that this frickin' guy that oh okay,
Speaker 2: this is making me very This part is pissing me off.
Speaker 2: Bake time. I mean, the whole story's pissing me off.
Speaker 2: But the fact that this is like the this. You
Speaker 2: guys have kids together, Yeah, and you're not allowing the
Speaker 2: kids to put their mother to rest.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I told you. At the very beginning, I said
Speaker 1: there was a mystery to this, and in the intro
Speaker 1: I even said and one question that still hasn't been
Speaker 1: answered is where is Jennifer.
Speaker 2: Well, the only thing that would explain this is if
Speaker 2: he was dead as well, because if he is literally
Speaker 2: just hiding this, holy frickin' crap, I'm pissed.
Speaker 1: I can tell you pissed.
Speaker 2: Also, I have absolutely no idea what the draw is.
Speaker 2: What's her name? Freakin Michelle?
Speaker 1: The draw?
Speaker 2: Her draw is to him? Right?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 2: I see is going about killing his ex wife who
Speaker 2: really hasn't done anything, and she still just wants to
Speaker 2: be with this guy, Like, are you kidding me that?
Speaker 2: If that isn't a red flag, I don't know what
Speaker 2: the hell is?
Speaker 1: No shit, I mean, I think they're a match made
Speaker 1: in heaven. Maybe who knows a couple of douche canoes?
Speaker 2: No kidding?
Speaker 1: Now. On June first, twenty nineteen, over a week after
Speaker 1: Jennifer initially disappeared, Fotus and Michelle were officially arrested. The
Speaker 1: initial charges were not for murder, though, but for tampering
Speaker 1: with or fabricating physical evidence and for hindering prosecution. At
Speaker 1: that stage, investigators were working with what they could to
Speaker 1: prove immediately, you know, while can you need to build
Speaker 1: a larger case in the time to come. But Fotis
Speaker 1: and Michelle, of course, they pleaded not guilty. However, as
Speaker 1: the legal process began, Potus took a different approach than
Speaker 1: many in his position might have because, rather than staying quiet,
Speaker 1: he made the decision to speak publicly. Because this guy
Speaker 1: clearly has a confidence of arrogance around him, so he
Speaker 1: decided he's going to talk about it.
Speaker 2: I don't even know if I want to know what
Speaker 2: he has to say.
Speaker 1: Well, in interviews and statements, he acknowledged how he was
Speaker 1: being perceived, but he pushed back against it. He basically
Speaker 1: said that he understood why people saw him in this
Speaker 1: negative light, but he maintained that he had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with Jennifer's disappearance whatsoever.
Speaker 2: Okay, but there's a lot of evidence you know saying
Speaker 2: that you did.
Speaker 1: Yes, but at this time a lot of that evidence
Speaker 1: wasn't public, okay now. He even went as far as
Speaker 1: to suggest that she maybe had staged her own disappearance,
Speaker 1: referencing a scenario very similar to the novel and film
Speaker 1: Gone Girl. So the idea was that she planned everything herself,
Speaker 1: leaving behind the evidence to frame him.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, I don't know her very well, but that
Speaker 2: does not seem like something that she would do.
Speaker 1: No, definitely not now. His attorney also spoke out, arguing
Speaker 1: that the timeline made it unlikely that Photos could have
Speaker 1: committed the crime. But I love that word unlikely, because
Speaker 1: you know what, there's always room for doubt. Right now.
Speaker 1: They pointed to what they described as an extensive alibi
Speaker 1: and suggested that the accusations did not align with the
Speaker 1: available facts. But as the months went on, the legal
Speaker 1: situation became more and more serious. In September of twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: Photos of Michelle were arrested again on additional charges related
Speaker 1: to evidence tampering, which of course is where it comes
Speaker 1: with finding the things in the garbage and stuff, right.
Speaker 1: And then in January of twenty twenty, after months of investigation,
Speaker 1: and the accumulation of evidence. Authorities took the next step
Speaker 1: and they were officially charged with murder, capital murder, and kidnapping.
Speaker 2: This guy just disgusts me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I should correct myself there, I said they.
Speaker 1: Fotus was charged with murder, capital murder and kidnapping Michelle, however,
Speaker 1: and a third individual named Kent Mahini, which is a
Speaker 1: local attorney and longtime associate of Fotus, while they were
Speaker 1: both charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Now, by January
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, the case had reached a point where everything
Speaker 1: was beginning to close in. The investigation had been ongoing
Speaker 1: for months. At this point, the timeline had been built,
Speaker 1: the charges had escalated, and Potus was now facing the
Speaker 1: most serious accusations possible, and the case was moving towards
Speaker 1: a trial where the evidence would be tested in court. However,
Speaker 1: it never made it that far COVID. It was January
Speaker 1: twenty eighth, twenty twenty, when Fotus failed to appear for
Speaker 1: a scheduled emergency bail hearing. He didn't show up, and
Speaker 1: concern shifted quickly, and officers were sent to his home
Speaker 1: in Farmington to check on him. When they arrived, they
Speaker 1: found him in his garage. He was inside his vehicle
Speaker 1: and was unresponsive. A hose had been connected from the
Speaker 1: exhaust of his running car and the space had filled
Speaker 1: with carbon monoxide. Officers broke in removed him from his
Speaker 1: vehicle and began CPR before transporting him to the hospital.
Speaker 1: He was still alive, but he was in very critical condition.
Speaker 1: But then two days later, on January thirtieth, he died. Okay,
Speaker 1: you literally said it earlier. If he's not if he's
Speaker 1: still alive, like he better have a reasonable Yeah. I
Speaker 1: wanted to say something so bad when you.
Speaker 2: Said it, but well, I mean, okay, there are other people,
Speaker 2: well maybe not, I guess. I I'm just assuming Michelle
Speaker 2: would know where the body is, but I guess she
Speaker 2: may not have. But this guy, like way to just
Speaker 2: put your kids through the frickin' ringer, no shit, Like
Speaker 2: you're just destroying their life. Yeah, basically, I don't even
Speaker 2: know how you would move forward from this as a child. Yes,
Speaker 2: it would be tough, you could, but you're never going
Speaker 2: to be the same obviously.
Speaker 1: No, There's going to be a lot that comes along
Speaker 1: with this, and he being the asshole that he is,
Speaker 1: he put that on his kids, Jeez. Now, before he
Speaker 1: did commit suicide, he had left a handwritten note. In it,
Speaker 1: he maintained his innocence. He wrote that he had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Jennifer's disappearance and stated that Michelle and
Speaker 1: Kent Mahiney with the other associate, were also not involved.
Speaker 1: He expressed frustration with a legal process. He said he
Speaker 1: refused to spend more time in jail for something he
Speaker 1: claimed he didn't do. But now with his death, the
Speaker 1: case was changing again. The charges against him could no
Speaker 1: longer move forward in the central figure of the prosecution
Speaker 1: theory was now gone, and with him went the possibility
Speaker 1: of a trial that might have proved a direct answer
Speaker 1: on what had happened to Jennifer, the very thing you
Speaker 1: concerned about. But thankfully the evidence did not disappear with him,
Speaker 1: and neither did the case. Prosecutors filed what is called
Speaker 1: a null prosecute. I hope I got that right. It
Speaker 1: is a Latin term meaning to be unwilling to pursue,
Speaker 1: which is a formal ending of the criminal case against him,
Speaker 1: because well, without him, nothing more could be done. Right,
Speaker 1: It was not an acquittal or a statement on the
Speaker 1: evidence though it was a simple recognition that a prosecution
Speaker 1: cannot proceed against someone who is no longer alive. They
Speaker 1: cannot be in court, it cannot happen. Even so, the
Speaker 1: investigation itself did not stop. The focus shifted to the
Speaker 1: others who had been charged in connection with Jennifer's disappearance,
Speaker 1: being Michelle Treconis, who had been arrested alongside Potus early
Speaker 1: in the case and was now facing the prospect of
Speaker 1: standing trial without him. Then also Kent Mahinny, that friend
Speaker 1: and attorney who had also been charged in conspiracy, which
Speaker 1: essentially was meaning he was involved in the planning and
Speaker 1: he remained part of the legal process as well. As
Speaker 1: the case continued forward, the role each person played became
Speaker 1: more defined. For Michelle, the focus it remained on her
Speaker 1: actions during and after the events of May twenty fourth.
Speaker 1: Investigators had already tied her to the timeline through surveillance footage,
Speaker 1: phone activity, and her own statements. Then there was the
Speaker 1: use of Photus's phone to create that alibi, her presence
Speaker 1: during the disposal of evidence in Hartford, and the inconsistencies.
Speaker 1: All of it made a very strong case against her.
Speaker 1: From a hinny, the allegations centered on the planning rather
Speaker 1: than the direct involvement. See investigators had uncovered evidence suggesting
Speaker 1: that he had knowledge of and may have participated in
Speaker 1: discussions related to the crime. At one point, they even
Speaker 1: found a shallow grave that had been discovered on the
Speaker 1: property connected to him, containing items such as lime and
Speaker 1: a tarp, which investigators believed could have been intended for
Speaker 1: the disposal of a body. However, as the legal process continued,
Speaker 1: the charges against Mahinny were eventually reduced. The state ultimately
Speaker 1: pursued a lesser charge of interfering with an officer rather
Speaker 1: than conspiracy to commit murder. He later pled guilty to
Speaker 1: that reduced charge and received a sentence that amounted to
Speaker 1: time already served in jail for Jennifer's family, though that
Speaker 1: outcome did not resolve the larger questions, I mean, where
Speaker 1: was she right? In statements made after the resolution of
Speaker 1: this case, they made it clear that while they supported
Speaker 1: the decision made by prosecutors, they did not believe it
Speaker 1: reflected the full extent of what had occurred. They maintained
Speaker 1: that Jennifer had been a victim of a planned and
Speaker 1: deliberate act, and that others may still hold information about
Speaker 1: what had happened to her and where she might be now.
Speaker 1: For Michelle's trial, it began in January of twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four years after the morning of May twenty nine, nineteen.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors presented the case step by step, laying out the
Speaker 1: sequence of events, the physical evidence, the actions that followed
Speaker 1: the attack, all of it. They showed the jury the
Speaker 1: surveillance footage from Hartford where Michelle was seated in the
Speaker 1: passenger seat as black trash bags were discarded across multiple
Speaker 1: locations with evidence and her DNA inside. They presented those
Speaker 1: items recovered from the bags, the clothing, the materials that
Speaker 1: were used for cleaning, and they connected them right back
Speaker 1: to what was found inside the garage. They also focused
Speaker 1: on the fake alibi, showing that she had used Photos's
Speaker 1: phone during key parts of that morning, creating the appearance
Speaker 1: that he was somewhere else. Investigators explained how that activity
Speaker 1: fit into the broader timeline and how it conflicted with
Speaker 1: the physical evidence from the home and movements of the vehicles.
Speaker 1: Jurors were shown how her interview statements had changed, how
Speaker 1: certain details had been corrected or withdrawn, and how her
Speaker 1: account of the day had not remained consistent as more
Speaker 1: information was becoming known. The handwritten notes outlining the version
Speaker 1: of events what investigators had described as the alibi scripts.
Speaker 1: They were also presented, showing that the story had been
Speaker 1: told falsely and was constructed rather than retold. The defense,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, argued that the evidence did not
Speaker 1: prove that she had known what had happened or that
Speaker 1: she had participated in the murder itself. They pointed to
Speaker 1: gaps in the case, including the absence of Jennifer's body,
Speaker 1: and challenged the interpretation of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Speaker 1: But after both sides were done presenting their case well,
Speaker 1: the jury needed to make a decision. In March of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, the jury found Michelle Treconis guilty on
Speaker 1: all counts, including conspiracy to commit murder, evidence tampering, and
Speaker 1: hindering prosecution. She was sentenced to serve fourteen and a
Speaker 1: half years in prison within aditional five years of probation
Speaker 1: after that, marking the first full conviction in the case
Speaker 1: that had begun nearly five years.
Speaker 2: Earlier, but still not near enough.
Speaker 1: Not nearly enough.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is not right in any way, but
Speaker 2: it makes sense I bet you anything that one of
Speaker 2: them at least knows where the body is. But why
Speaker 2: would they say, because then that's just going to make
Speaker 2: them look way more guilty. Right, So there's just no
Speaker 2: way it's going to come out, which is exactly horrible.
Speaker 1: The only way I think anything would ever come out
Speaker 1: if it does, because it still paints them in a
Speaker 1: bad light, is if a statute of limitations comes out. Now,
Speaker 1: in this case, when she does get out of prison
Speaker 1: or something like that, she could argue that, you know what,
Speaker 1: she was found guilty and she paid her dues. She
Speaker 1: did not murder, but she does know these things, she
Speaker 1: paid her due, she you know what it's done, So
Speaker 1: she could say, but I doubt she ever will.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, clearly these people aren't great, so why
Speaker 2: would they Clearly they're not right, so why would we
Speaker 2: expect them to all of a sudden do something good.
Speaker 1: I mean, guilt does get to people rarely, but it does.
Speaker 2: Ken.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Now, the legal process reached its conclusion. The case
Speaker 1: had answers, but not the one that mattered most. Jennifer's
Speaker 1: body was still missing, and it still is to this day.
Speaker 1: She was officially declared dead in twenty twenty three years
Speaker 1: after she was last seen walking back into her home,
Speaker 1: and though that declaration brought a form of legal closure,
Speaker 1: it didn't resolve what her family had been living with
Speaker 1: since the very beginning. There was still no recovery, no
Speaker 1: confirmed location, no final understanding where she had been taken
Speaker 1: after leaving that garage. For her five children, the outcome
Speaker 1: of the case did not change would have been lost either.
Speaker 1: In the span of less than a year, they lost
Speaker 1: both of their parents, one to a disappearance that was
Speaker 1: never fully resolved and the other to his own actions
Speaker 1: before the case could be tried in court. They were
Speaker 1: ultimately taken in and raised by Jennifer's mother, moving forward
Speaker 1: in a life shaped by something they did not choose
Speaker 1: and could not control. Over time, they have spoken out
Speaker 1: about what they had lost and what it meant, not
Speaker 1: just the absence of their mother, but the way it unfolded,
Speaker 1: the anger, the confusion, the lasting impact of growing up
Speaker 1: without clear answers, and how it has remained part of
Speaker 1: their lives and something they were forced to deal with.
Speaker 1: Jennifer's family has continued to speak out to In statements
Speaker 1: released years after her disappearance, they have made it clear
Speaker 1: that they believed what happened to her was planned and
Speaker 1: very much so deliberate. They have also said they believe
Speaker 1: there are still people who know where they have buried her,
Speaker 1: where she was taken or disposed of, people who could
Speaker 1: provide information about where she is. Investigators continue to follow leeds,
Speaker 1: returning to pies and conducting searches long after the initial investigation,
Speaker 1: but each search has come up empty and the most
Speaker 1: basic question has yet to be answered, Where is Jennifer.
Speaker 1: Jennifer Dulos was a mother. She was a writer and
Speaker 1: a person who built her life around her children. The
Speaker 1: case that followed her disappearance became widely known, but for
Speaker 1: those closest to her, it has never been about the
Speaker 1: case itself. It has been about her and about the
Speaker 1: absence that has still not been resolved. And even now,
Speaker 1: years later, that absence remains, with Jennifer Dulos listed as
Speaker 1: officially dead and still missing. And that's a story of
Speaker 1: Jennifer Dulos.
Speaker 2: This one disappoints the shit out of me. Understandable, I
Speaker 2: feel like you've avoided eye contact for a little bit
Speaker 2: because I'm just like freaking pissed.
Speaker 1: I don't want you to yell at.
Speaker 2: Me like, holy frick, I don't know. I feel so
Speaker 2: so many like emotions like disappointed, furious, sad, confused. It's
Speaker 2: just it's yeah, this one.
Speaker 1: I mean, Frank, I do hope that one day her
Speaker 1: remains recovered.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that would be great, Like, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's not going to change anything that's happened here, but
Speaker 2: at least they'll be like a site where the kids
Speaker 2: could go and you know, visit her or to rest, right,
Speaker 2: And because that's that would really be on your mind, wondering,
Speaker 2: you know, where, like where could she be, where could
Speaker 2: her body be? Like I don't yeah, that would be
Speaker 2: a terrible feeling. Yeah, so holy Okay, I.
Speaker 1: Hope regrets, I hope guilt, I hope something. I hope
Speaker 1: demons get to Michelle in prison and she she says something.
Speaker 2: But I mean, I guess there is obviously the possibility
Speaker 2: that someone could stumble across it to somewhere, right, I
Speaker 2: don't know.
Speaker 1: I have a feeling that's unlikely.
Speaker 2: I really well, especially with time passing, right, if there
Speaker 2: was a grave of sorts, it's gonna with time look
Speaker 2: less and less like one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. So I don't know. But I mean,
Speaker 1: look at it in this perspective. How many people have
Speaker 1: a have an attorney helping them plan a murder.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, that's kind of weird. I thought that was
Speaker 2: super odd.
Speaker 1: So, I mean, I'm not saying he paid the attorney
Speaker 1: in any sort of capacity, but he clearly has connections
Speaker 1: with this attorney, and we know he had money. With
Speaker 1: money and power in that situation, you can do a lot.
Speaker 1: So who's to say that, you know what, he didn't
Speaker 1: have very good connections. He has a real estate company
Speaker 1: or whatever he was working with. Maybe he disposed of
Speaker 1: it remains at someone's.
Speaker 2: Prim or built. I think it was a built. It
Speaker 2: was building. Yeah, we're building homes, so yeah, right there.
Speaker 1: So maybe she's in someone's foundation of a home right
Speaker 1: now and we will never know.
Speaker 2: Gosh.
Speaker 1: Now that's clearly just speculation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's it's quite a large possibility.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Most people in these situations, they're like, oh, I
Speaker 1: don't have the resources. It was just anger, you know whatever,
Speaker 1: and it's there. They dump them somewhere twenty kilometers or
Speaker 1: a few miles away, or dig him in their backyard.
Speaker 1: This guy had a he had much more resources at
Speaker 1: his disposal and the possibilities are much greater.
Speaker 2: Well, and did this guy actually think that he was
Speaker 2: going to get away with this?
Speaker 1: I guess so, even in death, he's thinking he's getting
Speaker 1: away with it. That's how he's escaping this.
Speaker 2: He's arrogant.
Speaker 1: He's self deleted, thinking, oh, I'm just going to write
Speaker 1: a suicide note clear my name and those others who
Speaker 1: are also associated with it. And because I killed myself,
Speaker 1: it's probably gonna look, you know, a little more believable,
Speaker 1: and it'll all be good. No, that's not the case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just wild that somewhat. I think that someone could
Speaker 2: be is arrogant the right word, so deluded, delusional to
Speaker 2: think that this would just they could just do this
Speaker 2: and go on living their life.
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of words I can use
Speaker 1: to describe it, and I'm not even talking about profanity,
Speaker 1: because trust me, that's a whole pfora I could probably
Speaker 1: pull up like a library, or I could write a
Speaker 1: book about all the names I want to call these people.
Speaker 1: But I think there's like arrogant. I think it's a
Speaker 1: great one. I think he's narcissistic. I think his suicide
Speaker 1: note is nothing but gaslighting. As well, those sort of things,
Speaker 1: the terms on his personality, the behaviors, it's extensive.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, Jennifer spent her the majority of her life
Speaker 2: raising the family that they wanted, right, So she sacrificed,
Speaker 2: you know, you know, having a career or whatever, let
Speaker 2: him do that while she raised all the kids. And
Speaker 2: this is what he returned, like doesn't in return.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And all she wanted was that family, that love,
Speaker 1: that home. And she wrote so much about her home life,
Speaker 1: her experience, her kids, and in the separation, he was
Speaker 1: trying to take that from her.
Speaker 2: Which I hope that the kids, I mean, I'm sure
Speaker 2: they do, but have some of that writing, you know,
Speaker 2: of hers that they can kind of like look back
Speaker 2: on and read and remember her and stuff.
Speaker 1: So I hope so too.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you guys for being here. I'm just going
Speaker 1: to say a little cheers to Jennifer. Hopefully she gets
Speaker 1: found one day, and if she doesn't, I hope she
Speaker 1: rests in peace. But thank you for being here. Don't
Speaker 1: forget to look at the description of this podcast. We
Speaker 1: have website, we have social media is if you want
Speaker 1: to send us your thoughts and opinion on this episode,
Speaker 1: please feel free. We're an independent podcast. We get to
Speaker 1: do this because people like you are here supporting us,
Speaker 1: so thank you so much, and until next time, stay
Speaker 1: wicked a bo