Found Deceased NY - Jennifer Ramsaran, 36, Chenango County, 11 Dec 2012 - # 8

[nanasbabes]

Was the broken tote still there? LE didn't call back and i didn't get up to the spot today so i didn't no if they were concerned about it. I did tell them what i was calling about but no return call

 

[Jilllian]

Was the broken tote still there? LE didn't call back and i didn't get up to the spot today so i didn't no if they were concerned about it. I did tell them what i was calling about but no return call

it wasn't there today, nana. i specifically looked for it. so LE (or someone else) must have retrieved it.

 

[nanasbabes]

I sure hope they did I was worried when i didnt here anything back! Omg hope no one else did!!!!!!

 

[amberdawn723]

it wasn't there today, nana. i specifically looked for it. so LE (or someone else) must have retrieved it.

I sure hope it was LE! :what:

 

[BearAngel]

Humm I think that spot is quiet steep. The snow is actually matted down quiet a bit in that spot.

Both of you are right...it is steep...but my first time by there, it was just leaves and woods....as the snow increased, it was much more steep...IMHO only...it was convenient.:twocents:

 

[SouthAussie]

So, with the funeral over and thanks given all around, I’m just wondering if anyone has noticed if GR is now back on the course of vengeance for his wife’s death?

 

[voominvava]

many of those residents don't work because they're elderly. and many have lived there for decades. some didn't notice the van because of the way their furniture is set up (ie. to face away from the window so they don't see headlights that shine in).

where JR was found isn't too steep. but with snowbanks on the side of the road, it would make sense why people driving by wouldn't have seen her.

i think she was there the whole time.

a body can't be moved easily once it's frozen.

Totally agree .. I don't think she or her van was moved. This was a kill - dump - hide evidence all within an hour or so. :moo:

 

[Jilllian]

So, with the funeral over and thanks given all around, I’m just wondering if anyone has noticed if GR is now back on the course of vengeance for his wife’s death?

Interesting question.

They raised money for a billboard, right?

I wonder if that money will now go to toward a reward for the capture and conviction of Jennifer's killer?

:jail:

 

[nanasbabes]

Wasn't it awhile ago when the billboards were mentioned, someone said to wait till forensics came back from LE first? And then someone didn't put any money towards it as well? Now that part makes sense to me, why would he put money in for a billboard if he new it wasn't needed because the perp new were she was all this time? This was probaly mentioned before but i can't help but hurt for JEN and her parents and children!

 

[horsenaround60]

I sure hope it was LE! :what:

Yes, i sure hope it was LE that got that tote! I wonder if theres a way to find out? Cause if they didnt take it, then it would be very suspicious!

 

[SouthAussie]

Interesting question.

They raised money for a billboard, right?

I wonder if that money will now go to toward a reward for the capture and conviction of Jennifer's killer?

:jail:

Now that it is evident that Jen didn’t run away, GR must be anxious to find the perpetrator of this crime as soon as possible, for Jen, for the children, for the family. :waitasec:

Billboards showing Jen’s car, public information to remind people of the date of the crime, reminders about the phone location … any info that can be made public to assist in finding the assailant.

And, yes, a reward would help too.

 

[Foxfire]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxfire
Imo, prolly the best metaphor that I have ever heard for circumstantial evidence is;

'If you went to bed last night & there was no snow on the ground, yet woke up with snow on the ground.. It would be reasonable to conclude that it snowed last night..

The circumstantial evidence in the Jennifer Ramsaran case is enormous, imo..

The body would have had to lay there about a week with no snow cover.

thefox, my comment has nothing to do with how long the body laid there without snow cover.. It was a metaphor for circumstantial evidence..

 

[zwiebel]

Both of you are right...it is steep...but my first time by there, it was just leaves and woods....as the snow increased, it was much more steep...IMHO only...it was convenient.:twocents:

BearAngel, you're an angel.

 

[zwiebel]

thefox, my comment has nothing to do with how long the body laid there without snow cover.. It was a metaphor for circumstantial evidence..

I saw a brilliant one posted in the attorney thread in the Jodie Arias trial thread. A witness to a fight is being cross examined by defence, over the witness's assertion he 'knows' the accused bit off another man's ear. Brief summary:

"So, did you actually see my client bite off that man's ear?"

"Not exactly, I-"

"Answer the question please, yes or no."

"No."

Defence rests, proud to have won the point. Prosecution rises.

"As you admit you did not see the accused bite off that man's ear, could you explain to me, please, what leads you to believe he did?'

"I saw him spit it out."

 

[all4justice]

I wondered last night if Jennifer had contacted a divorce attorney. Does attorney-client privilege prevent them from talking to LE if their client goes missing or is killed?

The general rule is that attorney-client privilege continues even after the client dies. The privilege belongs to the client and not the lawyer so usually, only the client can say, "ok, it's all right for you to tell someone else about what I told you." Since Jennifer Ramsaran is no longer with us, she can't give her consent so that's why the attorney probably wouldn't be able to confirm that Jennifer consulted him/her about filing for divorce.

The purpose of the privilege is to give clients confidence that they can speak freely with their attorneys with absolute confidence that those communications will not be divulged to third parties. The idea is that attorneys can represent clients most effectively if we know all the details, even those that may be embarrassing to the client, or even if they are details of past criminal actions. You can read more about the privilege here. Attorney–client privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Jennifer's case, if she had consulted an attorney about filing for divorce, her attorney would probably not be able to talk about it. However, Jennifer probably would have spoken with someone else about considering a divorce also, like a friend or family member. Law enforcement could just talk to that person instead. IMO, JMO

 

[zwiebel]

In the Drew Peterson trial, in one of the strangest defence moves I've ever seen, an attorney who Stacey Peterson consulted was able to reveal (under cross) that she had told him Drew had admitted to her that he killed his first wife, Kathleen.

I think that was instrumental in getting him convicted, imo.

ETA: Stacey wasn't in a position to give permission for the info to be revealed, as she has been missing for years now.

ETA: But...I think prosecution were not allowed to introduce that info originally as it was classed as hearsay?

 

[momrids6]

::
That or he's super frugal and couldn't stand the thought of throwing away a perfectly good phone :moo:

RSBM: I would agree with frugal. There was money available as there seemed to be many out of state races attended, yet the vehicles are 2006 and pre-2000 Chrysler vans.

 

[all4justice]

In the Drew Peterson trial, in one of the strangest defence moves I've ever seen, an attorney who Stacey Peterson consulted was able to reveal (under cross) that she had told him Drew had admitted to her that he killed his first wife, Kathleen.

I think that was instrumental in getting him convicted, imo.

ETA: Stacey wasn't in a position to give permission for the info to be revealed, as she has been missing for years now.

ETA: But...I think prosecution were not allowed to introduce that info originally as it was classed as hearsay?

That's right! I followed the Stacey Peterson case when I first joined Websleuths, and then followed the Kathleen Savio case a few months ago. I remember that the attorney was able to testify about his conversations with Stacey even though she was missing and therefore couldn't consent to the disclosure.

Individual states have their unique ways of applying the attorney-client privilege, but generally speaking, courts try to protect the communications between attorney and client. From what other sleuthers posted after I submitted my post, apparently New York State permits attorneys to acknowledge that they've been consulted by a potential client but prevents them from discussing the content of those communications. Other states may not allow even that much. IMO, JMO

 

[SouthAussie]

"How long does it take for a criminal case to become considered an unsolved case, or a cold case?"

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
"There is no time frame. As soon as you run out of leads, and there is nothing else to follow up on, the case goes inactive."
Source(s):
16 years law enforcement

From au.answers.yahoo.com


ETA: LE are consistently quiet in this particular case. Is this an active investigation into a murder yet? Surely this would be information the public can know. COD or no COD, Jen didn't cause her own death.

 

[cluciano63]

It will be a nightmare if this is one of those cases where cause and manner of death are undetermined. Seems like there have been several here at WS in the past few years, or at least controversial ones, listed as suicide, etc.

You would think COD should always be available these days, but it isn't always.