I'm a newbie here, and just wanted to say hello, and let you all know that I have been following along the threads here in regards to the Jennifer Ramsaran case, and am quite honored to finally be a member of this forum.
As for my thoughts on all of this... I believe that I agree with most of what has been presented on these threads concerning this case. I had recently responded through comment with some of my own observations on OffRoadRunner91's video of Center Road on YouTube, under my name on there of 4nonL33ters, so it's finally nice to be here.
As to whether "GR" was involved or not, I don't know. I do know that his actions have all the hallmarks of one that is involved. Dwelling on this case since the beginning (my family lives in and around Chenango and Madison counties), and following it closely, I have began to notice things that lead me to believe that some of GR's actions in the aftermath of Jennifer's disappearance could have been done to actually hamper any chance of a trial... either for himself and/or a possible accomplice.
His words speak volumes in convincing me that he indeed is a culprit somehow. Most especially the recorded interviews that he has conducted with media outlets. However, some of what has been said by him, or attributed to him by writers like Joe Mahoney (who is awesome btw), was actually quoted through his "spokeswoman."
Irregardless of whether or not he indeed did confide some of the things that were said by his "spokeswoman" to the media, it's possible that those statements can now be ruled inadmissible in trial as hearsay.
Using the I-Phone as evidence can also be inadmissible, because the "chain of custody/chain of evidence" has been broken by GR. All evidence must be "clocked" and logged by the deputy/police officer and/or the lead detective. This is done to ensure that the evidence can be used in trial.
IIRC, GR found the I-Phone using the Find I-Phone application, and after pinging it and locating it, he picked it up and photographed it. There's no telling what he may have or may not have done to the phone (i.e. did he wipe it of possible fingerprints? did he switch the SIM card? etc.).
As for the "blood under the seat" in the van. LE still hasn't come forward to say whether or not that is true or not. IIRC, Joe Mahoney quoted GR's "spokeswoman" as saying that there was blood found underneath the drivers seat of the van.
If that turns out to be correct, it's possible now that that can't be used in court either, because it's information that would have been pertinent to the case, and since it was leaked to the media by GR's "spokeswoman", quoting GR, it's possible that it can't be administered as evidence into the case.
:waitasec:
This tells me a lot, and convinces me that a lot of thought may have been put forth into the planning of this. It seems bad, and that perhaps justice can be evaded, but there's a possible silver lining.
The "spokeswoman" could be made to attest to the fact that GR confided these things to her. She could be placed under oath and called as a witness. Joe Mahoney and other journalists who had contact with the "spokeswoman" could also be called to attest under oath that they were told these things by the "spokeswoman."
I'm sure that the I-Phone was dusted for prints. Assuming that Jennifer or her assailant's prints would possibly be on the phone; if the phone was found to only contain the prints of GR, and/or showed evidence of being wiped down (i.e. not smudged or broken, or lacking dirt particles, etc.), or evidence of being tampered with (i.e. changed SIM card, deleted information, etc.), then it can be used against GR.
While the "blood in the van" may not be able to be used as evidence in the case concerning Jennifer's death, it's possible that the leaking of it to the media via his "spokeswoman," can be viewed as a means to disrupt or interfere in the investigation, and/or an attempt on the part of GR to cast doubt against LE for revealing pertinent information, and possibly lead to a mistrial. (The same can apply with the phone if they present it as evidence with GR having handled it outside of the chain of custody).
Is he involved in this? It's very possible. His actions, and the evidence speaks volumes. It's also possible that he's covering for someone. The only question to that would be is, "Who?" :twocents:
lease:
