Found Deceased NY - Jennifer Ramsaran, 36, Chenango County, 11 Dec 2012 - # 9

[Ace85FL]

Partly absolutely. Without going into more at the moment. I'm throwing out the possibility that they weren't related to the first paragraph at all.

Hasn't anyone had a conversation with a person when your trying to figure out how something could have potentially happened. Not suggesting that it made sense, or was in their character, but simply attempting to figure out how a scenario could possibly have played out.

I see what you mean, Solus.

Officials seek leads on missing area woman

Paragraph 1: (The Family Friend)
Jennifer Renz Ramsaran, the 36-year-old stay-at-home mom missing for a week under suspicious circumstances, had begun discussing the possibility of separating from her husband and had made new online gaming friends through her iPhone account, a family friend said Tuesday.

Paragraph 2: (The Anonymous Source)
“It sounded like she was developing an emotional attachment to somebody,” said a source who spoke to The Daily Star on the condition of anonymity. “If there was somebody showing her an awful lot of attention, I could see her being misled.”

With the positioning of the paragraphs... it could be read that the family friend, was the same one that made the anonymous statement that referred to Jennifer having possibly met someone.

However, the positioning of it near the statement made by the family friend could be perceived by the reader that it's a continuing statement from the family friend, however they're suddenly referred to as an anonymous source, when in the previous statement it was a family friend.

Separating the two statements... as two separate individuals... the anonymous source could be referring to someone locally. In context, it's definitely not the same person as the family friend.

“It sounded like she was developing an emotional attachment to somebody,” said a source who spoke to The Daily Star on the condition of anonymity. “If there was somebody showing her an awful lot of attention, I could see her being misled.”

Laying aside the notion that the second paragraph is a continuation of the first paragraph (because it's clearly two different people speaking)... it's a rumor, but it's not a definitive statement like rumors tend to be.

I could see it as one giving a possibility for the reason her disappearance. It was a little over a week after Jennifer's disappearance when it was given as a statement (the article is from December 19th).

One could then read it as one maintaining their anonymity, without naming names or getting involved.

It could be based on observation, and one suggesting a possibility based on what they observed, or what they may have heard from another person (i.e. a local rumor).

But it's given from a stance of open-mindedness, which diverts from the norm when it comes to rumors, which usually tend to be unspecified yet definitive sounding statements.

The source seems to give Jennifer the benefit of the doubt... hence the speculative statements that suggest a speculative possibility but not a definite.

“It sounded like (Note: speculative possibility, no definite) she was developing an emotional attachment to somebody,” said a source who spoke to The Daily Star on the condition of anonymity. “If (Note: speculative possibility, no definite) there was somebody showing her an awful lot of attention, I could see (Note: speculative possibility, no definite) her being misled.”

IMO

I would say that it's a POSSIBLE lead from something that's been there pretty much the whole time, but that we've been reading wrong.

It could indicate the potentiality of another potential POI.

It could indicate a possible local rumor that could in turn indicate a possible motive.

It could be something that someone speaking under the condition of anonymity put out there, to possibly lead LE off on a rabbit trail.

We don't know... but at least it should be followed to see if it leads anywhere.

 

[Solus]

There were way too many conversations to try and respond to them all.

- I have no fear of GR nor do his bidding.

- I'm not bidding time to answer the questions to the comments I've started. My first attempt to start was removed and I was asked to wait till after verification.

- I have not said or implied anything negative about Jen.

You ask why no one is stepping up to discuss what has happened. I'm here attempting to talk about it. Being a friend of GR doesn't equal being anti JR.

<modsnip>

 

[BearAngel]

Bear is out...tomorrow is another photo shoot possibly if the weather permits. I keep thinking that there is something I have missed in the trail of the van.:rocker: g'night

 

[Montjoy]

Once you are verified, hope we don't hear that there is secret information that only certain people know that points to it not being GR.

Personally, I prefer to have true information over information that merely confirms my assumptions, even if that complicates matters. Like most people, I imagine, I hope my assumptions are right and based on true information. But I am worried when people ignore information that is true because it doesn't confirm what they already believe. That's what leads to witch-hunts. I'm not saying that this is the case here (that is, I'm not saying this discussion is mainly a baseless witch-hunt), but I'd hate to see a court of law, or a court of sleuthing like WS, ignore true information simply because it goes against what most believe happened in a particular situation.

That being said, I think this is most likely a crime, and I believe that the person responsible is the same one that most here do. But I really don't have enough verified information to say that I'm certain enough to dismiss any truth that goes against my assumptions.

 

[SouthAussie]

Personally, I prefer to have true information over information that merely confirms my assumptions, even if that complicates matters. Like most people, I imagine, I hope my assumptions are right and based on true information. But I am worried when people ignore information that is true because it doesn't confirm what they already believe. That's what leads to witch-hunts. I'm not saying that this is the case here (that is, I'm not saying this discussion is mainly a baseless witch-hunt), but I'd hate to see a court of law, or a court of sleuthing like WS, ignore true information simply because it goes against what most believe happened in a particular situation.

That being said, I think this is most likely a crime, and I believe that the person responsible is the same one that most here do. But I really don't have enough verified information to say that I'm certain enough to dismiss any truth that goes against my assumptions.

Yes, new, fresh information is most welcome ... please don't get me wrong. I just am hoping that the insider information is not that 'we know things that we cannot talk about and that is why we know GR is not involved' again.

 

[sleepinoz]

Personally, I prefer to have true information over information that merely confirms my assumptions, even if that complicates matters. Like most people, I imagine, I hope my assumptions are right and based on true information. But I am worried when people ignore information that is true because it doesn't confirm what they already believe. That's what leads to witch-hunts. I'm not saying that this is the case here (that is, I'm not saying this discussion is mainly a baseless witch-hunt), but I'd hate to see a court of law, or a court of sleuthing like WS, ignore true information simply because it goes against what most believe happened in a particular situation.

That being said, I think this is most likely a crime, and I believe that the person responsible is the same one that most here do. But I really don't have enough verified information to say that I'm certain enough to dismiss any truth that goes against my assumptions.

Montjoy - I don't think there is anyone here that does not wish to hear the truth in this case.

IMO SouthAussie was saying they do not wish to hear the same old statement we have heard from others, and that statement goes - I know so much more information that I cannot disclose to you - this statement always insinuating that GR is innocent without presenting any factual information.

 

[Montjoy]

Yes, new, fresh information is most welcome ... please don't get me wrong. I just am hoping that the insider information is not that 'we know things that we cannot talk about and that is why we know GR is not involved' again.

Well, we're on the same page! If someone said something like you suggested above, it would be considered 'baiting', and the diligent mods here would strike it from the record, and it would not be something that we could discuss.

 

[yupikgirl]

Yes, new, fresh information is most welcome ... please don't get me wrong. I just am hoping that the insider information is not that 'we know things that we cannot talk about and that is why we know GR is not involved' again.

I agree! I would love to hear something other than "can't tell you" otherwise it doesn't seem very credible you know.

 

[Montjoy]

I agree! I would love to hear something other than "can't tell you" otherwise it doesn't seem very credible you know.

Agreed. By the same token, I think it hurts the conversation when the only sort of verification someone can provide is "I've heard that..." or "Someone told me." I think the rules of evidence here have a lot to do with what makes the conversation valuable in determining the truth.

 

[sleepinoz]

Snap SouthAussie :rocker:

 

[SouthAussie]

Agreed. By the same token, I think it hurts the conversation when the only sort of verification someone can provide is "I've heard that..." or "Someone told me." I think the rules of evidence here have a lot to do with what makes the conversation valuable in determining the truth.

Well, we don't hear much of that here ... MSM links, LE links, and verified insider info is what we stick to .. thanks to our diligent mods

 

[Montjoy]

Just to be clear -- I responded on this page to a post which read "Once you are verified, hope we don't hear that there is secret information that only certain people know that points to it not being GR." If the post had only read "Once you are verified, hope we don't hear that there is secret information [about which] only certain people [can know]," I wouldn't have responded. It's just my opinion that the facts have to guide my disposition towards a case. I've seen some people become easy suspects that later could not be exonerated regardless of the facts. And again, I'm not accusing the original poster of thinking this way; I'm just responding to a post.

 

[SouthAussie]

No worries Montjoy, understood ... my Aussie brevity is getting me into strife again! We just don't like to go on much, part of our culture, we abbreviate everything

 

[zwiebel]

I can imagine that mutual friends of Jennifer and her husband, especially any with children who are close to Jennifer's children......they could be very reluctant to say anything that could result in bad feelings. They'll be wanting to support the children in every way they can at this time.

I am not talking about withholding info from LE or anything like that. I just mean not talking publicly about any suspicions they may have. I would completely understand that.

 

[zwiebel]

Is it just me, or has this case gone very, very quiet, media wise? There doesn't seem to be a single thing out there. I know COD has not been announced, but it still seems unusual to me.

 

[Abigail]

I don't think it's because of just being friends with GR but possibly fear - fear of retaliation maybe if involved or fear of losing relationship with him and/or children- maintain that last little part of connection with Jen? Besides most friends of GR likely do not know more than that in MSM and would probably share more feelings instead of facts and have likely already been questioned by LE and cannot share this information at this time IMO

Yes, absolutely, Magiefeu -- I think all of your points here are quite excellent. Well said.

:rocker:

 

[Abigail]

BBM OKAY! :great: I am glad someone said this.

If the info we were given was correct the type of games she supposedly played are far from the "I'm meeting other people" type. In a previous post by LD/CC it was said it was not a farmville type game, in which it is(if the game we were told she played is correct).

Like you said I would never believe that a phone game would be the cause of a missing family member, and honestly I do not think that would even cross my mind while searching for them.

While we are on the topic of the gaming, I actually signed up for the game. There is no way you could spend endless time on this game or meet random strangers. The global chat blows up with 40 messages a minute, they were so many I could not keep up with them. Its a click, click, and you are done type game, Do the little quests and then click, click again after the game prompts you to which could be as long as 4 hours.

I have screenshots if anyone is interested.

Thanks -- that's quite interesting. I've never really delved into online games, so don't know anything about them. And I think the name of the game was something about Camelot?? But...let me get you straight -- you said "global chat" -- does that mean everyone is online at the same time, and can see everyone else's messages?

I believe from what we heard from POB was that Jenn would be on at various times during the day, but in and out. Like come in, and play for a couple minutes, and then, "Oh, time for school run" and she's off. Not playing for 12 hours straight, as I recall being implied. So...that seems to agree with what you're saying is that you wait for the game to prompt you for the next move.

 

[ana]

Thanks -- that's quite interesting. I've never really delved into online games, so don't know anything about them. And I think the name of the game was something about Camelot?? But...let me get you straight -- you said "global chat" -- does that mean everyone is online at the same time, and can see everyone else's messages?

I believe from what we heard from POB was that Jenn would be on at various times during the day, but in and out. Like come in, and play for a couple minutes, and then, "Oh, time for school run" and she's off. Not playing for 12 hours straight, as I recall being implied. So...that seems to agree with what you're saying is that you wait for the game to prompt you for the next move.

BBM

Yes, global as in every player that plays the game. There is also a separate section for those people on your alliance(team). You add these to increase your chances at winning the game, the best way to explain it.

Exactly, you would play this game standing in line, waiting for kids, or like while making dinner but its not done baking yet. That kind of thing where you are waiting for something, where you would probably look at your smart phone anyways.

I did a little test to see if my husband would even notice me grabbing at my phone when I played He didn't even know I installed a new game, its already been a couple of days. I am on level 8 now so I have been playing for a little bit. However, the amount of time it takes me to play when I do play is around 2 to 3 minutes. Because you do a task and you wait for the game to tell you its done. You queue actually gets full and cant do anything else, when you are doing the timed tasks.


It just really, really, really bothers me that this is something we were told was some kind of huge thing and it's not. Its like I wonder what other statements are a blatant lie or lie by omission.

 

[Abigail]

BBM

Yes, global as in every player that plays the game. There is also a separate section for those people on your alliance(team). You add these to increase your chances at winning the game, the best way to explain it.

Exactly, you would play this game standing in line, waiting for kids, or like while making dinner but its not done baking yet. That kind of thing where you are waiting for something, where you would probably look at your smart phone anyways.

I did a little test to see if my husband would even notice me grabbing at my phone when I played He didn't even know I installed a new game, its already been a couple of days. I am on level 8 now so I have been playing for a little bit. However, the amount of time it takes me to play when I do play is around 2 to 3 minutes. Because you do a task and you wait for the game to tell you its done. You queue actually gets full and cant do anything else, when you are doing the timed tasks.


It just really, really, really bothers me that this is something we were told was some kind of huge thing and it's not. Its like I wonder what other statements are a blatant lie or lie by omission.

Yes, that sounds exactly like what POB was describing about Jenn's playing the game -- just a couple minutes here and a several minutes there.

Indeed -- it's these lies and insinuations about Jennifer that are quite disturbing. First, why would one want to dishonor a loved one by insinuating such things? And secondly, what would be the motive?

I think motive is a key word.

Now, just to clarify -- you said there is a separate section for those in your alliance (I think I was incorrectly using the word guild before). Now, by this, do you mean a message section? Are the messages visible to everyone in the alliance? Can you post a private message to someone?

 

[ana]

Yes, that sounds exactly like what POB was describing about Jenn's playing the game -- just a couple minutes here and a several minutes there.

Indeed -- it's these lies and insinuations about Jennifer that are quite disturbing. First, why would one want to dishonor a loved one by insinuating such things? And secondly, what would be the motive?

I think motive is a key word.

Now, just to clarify -- you said there is a separate section for those in your alliance (I think I was incorrectly using the word guild before). Now, by this, do you mean a message section? Are the messages visible to everyone in the alliance? Can you post a private message to someone?

The messages would be to whoever is in that alliance, so you post there and everyone sees it. You can send messages to other users and these would go to your inbox.