Jilllian
Verified Insider - Jennifer Ramsaran Case
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,062
- Reaction score
- 589
RSBM, BBMHis 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.
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."
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
Welcome!
Some questions/thoughts:
1. Hearsay is often admissible in court, as "intentional communication of fact," right? Or another exception? Which one, do you think?
2. Chain of custody: Even when broken, items still be can used in the trial, can't they? The defense can ask that it be ruled inadmissable, but does that automatically mean that it would be? The phone for example. Can the fact that GR himself found the phone be used against him, or do you mean the phone's data can't be used based on breaking the chain of custody? I've seen rape cases where the chain of custody with evidence collection was breached and still that evidence was allowed in...BUT the reason for breaking that chain of custody was thoroughly examined, cross-examined, etc. Do you see that as a possibility in this case?
3. Blood under seat: Do you mean that since GR's spokesperson commented on the blood, it can't be used in court? Also, she commented on his affair, calling it an "alcohol fueld tryst." I would imagine that both are key pieces of evidence and will be used as such in court, especially the affair, as motive. Do you? Besides having the spokesperson called to testify under oath herself, do you think it's plausible?
4. Spokesperson: And heavily cross-examined.
5. Hallelujah!