Found Deceased NY - Jennifer Ramsaran, 36, Chenango County, 11 Dec 2012 - #12

[Abigail]

http://www.jdbar.com/Articles/equitable-distribution.html

NY state doesn't just automatically cut any assets owned by the couple in half when they divorce.

Mitigating factors:

1) The court determines what is jointly owned, and what is individually owned (includes property, bank accounts, debts, cash value of life insurance, vehicles, jewelry, et.) Individually owned property would include property owned prior to the marriage, inheritance, gifts, etc.

2) If either the husband or wife hold a professional degree or license which would enhance their earning potential, this is considered an "asset" (only in NY state). What this means is that even if the wife is already receiving child support, she can also claim a share of his future income as equitable distribution of property. There was actually one case in NY state where a husband making $181,000 a year was left with only $16,000 after paying equitable distribution, child support and maintenance (which can include medical bills and college education) and taxes.

Normally, for a long-term marriage, the court will divide jointly owned property and assets 50/50. But if there is a big disparity between salaries and/or earning potential, the court may award a bigger percentage to the poorer partner.

 

[zwiebel]

Chances are, Jennifer would have won child custody, and GR would have had to pay her child support.

He may have also had to pay her spousal support.

What would the court consider?
1) Disparity between incomes (an IBM project manager making around $75,000 to $90,000 a year versus a housewife. Or versus a home health aide at $18,000 to $24,000 if working fulltime)

2) Duration of the marriage (14 years)

3) Health of the parties (Jennifer's fibromyalgia may have factored in)

Jennifer probably wouldn't have received permanent alimony. But since she'd been mostly a housewife during most of their marriage, the judge would have probably granted her spousal support for a set period of time so she could get back on her feet. I'm guessing likely long enough for her to complete a degree so she could earn enough income on her own.

It's quite likely Jennifer would have been awarded the home too, isn't it? At least until the children were adults, if she were awarded custody? Maybe that would have meant GR continuing to have to pay a mortgage, when maybe he wanted to set up home with someone else and even start another family. Financially, that could have made things very difficult for him as I am not sure he would have been willing to entertain the idea that might mean cutting down or giving up expensive hobbies or interests.

 

[zwiebel]

I have also wondered if GR maybe felt he had reached a plateau in his career. In some companies, if you haven't reached the level you want to by a certain age, it's highly unlikely you ever will. Or some companies aren't willing to take a chance on promoting someone whose capabilities aren't crystal clear, so it can be very hard to achieve a better position, with better money.

That could have made him think his prospects for paying his way out of any debts he may have had were very bleak indeed, without a big cash windfall.

 

[Abigail]

It's quite likely Jennifer would have been awarded the home too, isn't it? At least until the children were adults, if she were awarded custody? Maybe that would have meant GR continuing to have to pay a mortgage, when maybe he wanted to set up home with someone else and even start another family. Financially, that could have made things very difficult for him as I am not sure he would have been willing to entertain the idea that might mean cutting down or giving up expensive hobbies or interests.

I think, to GR, the large house with it's lovely stretch of lawn and woods would have been a important status symbol. One he'd be unlikely to give up willingly.

I'm not so sure the house was especially important to Jennifer. I remember reading a posting where she seemed a bit disgruntled with the design. However, it was located just next door to her parents. And it was the home her children had grown up in. If she were granted physical custody, it's likely the courts would have also granted her the house (at least until the children were grown) so as not to disrupt the children more than necessary.

Even if she gave up the house (and looking at video footage of the house design, I would imagine that heating bills in the winter would be astronomical), GR would have to give her at least half the value of the house. I think someone here (a realtor?) indicated the present value of the home to be somewhere around $200,000? So, if GR kept the house, he'd have to give Jennifer around $100,000 (at least) to buy another home.

That may have been a problem, depending on how much of the principle on their mortgage had been paid off. He'd have to refinance and get a 2nd mortgage, and may not have been able to get enough. For one thing, didn't houses decline in value since they purchased it?

 

[Abigail]

I have also wondered if GR maybe felt he had reached a plateau in his career. In some companies, if you haven't reached the level you want to by a certain age, it's highly unlikely you ever will. Or some companies aren't willing to take a chance on promoting someone whose capabilities aren't crystal clear, so it can be very hard to achieve a better position, with better money.

That could have made him think his prospects for paying his way out of any debts he may have had were very bleak indeed, without a big cash windfall.

Not to mention IBM's habit of laying off long-term employees (even with excellent track records) just to meet the bottom line.

 

[Abigail]

If Jennifer needed to hire a lawyer, and couldn't afford it, she could sue GR for payment of her own attorney's fees, as he was the spouse with the greater (only) income.

If it were a simple divorce, uncontested, legal fees would probably be less than $1000.

But if they went to war over the kids and house, attorneys charge by the hour, and if a lot of time is spent on a case, the legal fees could rise to $15,000 or higher.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/divorce-costs-lawyers_n_1605704.html

 

[Abigail]

What GR would probably lose in a divorce:

1) At least $21,000 a year in child support payments for a number of years, in addition to their medical insurance premiums, and medical expenses not covered by insurance.

2) The house. Or, he could keep the house and pay about $100,000 to Jennifer (half the appraised value)

3) 1/2 (at least, perhaps more) of all other assets (other property, bank accounts, life insurance and retirement, furniture, vehicles, jewelry, etc.)

4) Legal fees (he'd probably have to pay both his and Jennifer's) -- perhaps around $20,000, depending on how much they could agree on between themselves, and how complicated property and such would be.

5) Spousal support (probably for two to four years) -- perhaps another 20% of his income?

Divorce would cost GR a lot. His kids. Probably his house. His prestige. A big chunk of cash upfront, and a big chunk (1/3 to 1/2) out of his paycheck until all the kids grew up.

Whoever doesn't think that his adultery, and the resulting pending divorce were not a powerful motive hasn't done the math.

I think GR did do the math.

 

[upstate]

I have learned that GR and Jen had some great friend's -- I'm haunted by certain events leading up to Jen's murder and I'm sure you guys are too -- I pray for a truth that won't leave any of you wondering if your dear friend could have done this. As many have tried to point out, I too tried to stand by GR, he quickly got out of control with giving away Jen's personal belongings and just saying things about this mommy that I couldn't wrap my mind around

I can tell you that Jen seemed sad, she seemed depressed, she was an awesome and caring mom, she was such a talented artist and she was a great friend to her friends. I could have stepped up and offered my friendship to Jen on a few occasions as we have so many mutual friend's -- Just hoping all of Jen's friends are as good as gr's and stand up for Jen so whomever did this to her is found guilty -- I feel very confident the person being held for Jen's murder is the correct person

My heart goes out to everyone who has been effected by this

 

[Jilllian]

It's quite likely Jennifer would have been awarded the home too, isn't it? At least until the children were adults, if she were awarded custody? Maybe that would have meant GR continuing to have to pay a mortgage, when maybe he wanted to set up home with someone else and even start another family. Financially, that could have made things very difficult for him as I am not sure he would have been willing to entertain the idea that might mean cutting down or giving up expensive hobbies or interests.

i don't believe there was a mortgage on the house.

 

[zwiebel]

BBM

I have learned that GR and Jen had some great friend's -- I'm haunted by certain events leading up to Jen's murder and I'm sure you guys are too -- I pray for a truth that won't leave any of you wondering if your dear friend could have done this. As many have tried to point out, I too tried to stand by GR, he quickly got out of control with giving away Jen's personal belongings and just saying things about this mommy that I couldn't wrap my mind around

I can tell you that Jen seemed sad, she seemed depressed, she was an awesome and caring mom, she was such a talented artist and she was a great friend to her friends. I could have stepped up and offered my friendship to Jen on a few occasions as we have so many mutual friend's -- Just hoping all of Jen's friends are as good as gr's and stand up for Jen so whomever did this to her is found guilty -- I feel very confident the person being held for Jen's murder is the correct person

My heart goes out to everyone who has been effected by this

I think the same thing will happen at the trial, if he decides to testify. I don't think there will be any doubts left in people's minds if that happens, when the verdict is brought in.

I really can't wait for the trial to be over, so people can get a chance to recover and renew, as much as possible. But I am glad to see that care and kindness and co-operation seems to be gradually replacing most of the horrible stuff that has been swirling around. Long may it continue, and grow.

 

[upstate]

BBM



I think the same thing will happen at the trial, if he decides to testify. I don't think there will be any doubts left in people's minds if that happens, when the verdict is brought in.

I really can't wait for the trial to be over, so people can get a chance to recover and renew, as much as possible. But I am glad to see that care and kindness and co-operation seems to be gradually replacing most of the horrible stuff that has been swirling around. Long may it continue, and grow.

The community has stepped up, I think. There are some things in motion, even if not just to let Jen's children know the community is here for them. An end to this seems so far away, but I have hopes of Jen's kids feeling like they are home and safe in our community some day

And I think you're right, he won't be able to keep his mouth shut and he will have to take the stand. I don't think he'll be able to help himself, he just can't keep quiet

 

[Abigail]

i don't believe there was a mortgage on the house.

Thanks Jillian, if you're correct, that's useful information.

I got to thinking about the financial end of things I'd been listing, and it occured to me (not sure how this works) that if there were still a mortgage on the house, and GR kept the house, he wouldn't need to give Jen half of the entire value of the house, but only half of what had already been paid off the principle (if that makes sense) -- but I'm not sure.

But if there weren't a mortgage, he'd have to either let her have the house until the children were grown (at which point it could be sold and the money divided, if I understand correctly), or he could keep the house and would have to give her half the value -- which means that he would then be in a mortgage or loan payments again.

At any rate, no matter which way it went -- he'd either lose the house or lose a lot of money. And he'd probably lose the kids as well.

 

[Abigail]

Could someone satisfy my curiousity as to what it means to be an "insider"?

I do so appreciate the input from Jillian and Rick Blaine and now Upstate. And I believe there are one or two more out there who could bring a lot to the table.

 

[sleepinoz]

Could someone satisfy my curiousity as to what it means to be an "insider"?

I do so appreciate the input from Jillian and Rick Blaine and now Upstate. And I believe there are one or two more out there who could bring a lot to the table.

Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[zwiebel]

The community has stepped up, I think. There are some things in motion, even if not just to let Jen's children know the community is here for them. An end to this seems so far away, but I have hopes of Jen's kids feeling like they are home and safe in our community some day

And I think you're right, he won't be able to keep his mouth shut and he will have to take the stand. I don't think he'll be able to help himself, he just can't keep quiet

Yes, I agree. I thought when GR made the big announcement about 'the last interview', it might have been a way of trying to stop himself talking. He must have known much of what he'd said didn't look good by then, and announcing his 'retirement' publically helped him not respond to journalists' enquiries.

Sadly though, to me that announcement made it look as though he didn't much care if Jennifer's killer was brought to justice or not. The vengeance thing sounded false to me, though I think the screw justice statement was heartfelt.

I did think about that a lot, because when a missing loved one is found that's exactly what family usually do - they stop speaking to the media because they are grieving. That's when a supporter usually steps forward to appeal for privacy for the family, and thanks people for their help. So in theory GR behaved exactly how I'd have expected when Jennifer was found, but it just didn't sit right.

He made the announcement himself and he didn't seem grief stricken at all to me - just impatient and glad to be getting rid of the media. As though he had gotten over Jennifer's death long before she was found, in fact.

 

[zwiebel]

Thanks Jillian, if you're correct, that's useful information.

I got to thinking about the financial end of things I'd been listing, and it occured to me (not sure how this works) that if there were still a mortgage on the house, and GR kept the house, he wouldn't need to give Jen half of the entire value of the house, but only half of what had already been paid off the principle (if that makes sense) -- but I'm not sure.

But if there weren't a mortgage, he'd have to either let her have the house until the children were grown (at which point it could be sold and the money divided, if I understand correctly), or he could keep the house and would have to give her half the value -- which means that he would then be in a mortgage or loan payments again.

At any rate, no matter which way it went -- he'd either lose the house or lose a lot of money. And he'd probably lose the kids as well.

Thank you Abigail! I hoped if I waited long enough before responding you'd work out the implications of Jillian's new information. You are very good at working this stuff out, and even better at explaining it.

 

[Abigail]

Yes, I agree. I thought when GR made the big announcement about 'the last interview', it might have been a way of trying to stop himself talking. He must have known much of what he'd said didn't look good by then, and announcing his 'retirement' publically helped him not respond to journalists' enquiries.

Sadly though, to me that announcement made it look as though he didn't much care if Jennifer's killer was brought to justice or not. The vengeance thing sounded false to me, though I think the screw justice statement was heartfelt.

I did think about that a lot, because when a missing loved one is found that's exactly what family usually do - they stop speaking to the media because they are grieving. That's when a supporter usually steps forward to appeal for privacy for the family, and thanks people for their help. So in theory GR behaved exactly how I'd have expected when Jennifer was found, but it just didn't sit right.

He made the announcement himself and he didn't seem grief stricken at all to me - just impatient and glad to be getting rid of the media. As though he had gotten over Jennifer's death long before she was found, in fact.

Excellent post -- I agree totally. The fact that he actually called the media and arranged interviews on the day he got the news that Jennifer died...it sure seemed like he knew he'd inevitably have to do so; consequently, he decided to get it over and done with (as if he could only turn on the tears for so long), and then get on with life.

Upstate -- I had to giggle when I read your post about him "having" to take the stand -- just imagining this scene in my head between GR and his attorneys.

 

[Abigail]

A poster on another thread told me the majority of murderers only murder once. I don't know the details of those stats - maybe it's because many are in prison for so long they are not physically capable of murdering again when released? !

Being in prison for decades, and getting out at an advanced age didn't stop Dennis Stanworth from killing again.

In 1966 he raped and killed two teenage girls and was sentenced to death. In 1972, California did away with capital punishment, so his sentence was changed to life in prison. After being incarcerated for 34 years, he was paroled.

In January 2013, he killed again. At age 70, frail and in a wheelchair.

This time, the victim was his 90 year old mother.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/repeat_murder.htm

 

[Abigail]

Fascinating article here, about how researchers who specialize in behavioral analysis can evaluate videotapes of appeals to the public for a missing relative. Using behavioral cues such as facial expressions and speech, specialists have been able to accurately predict 90% of the time whether the plea is from a deceptive murderer or from a genuinely distressed relative.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-equation/201304/big-lies-and-the-boogie-man

Below, I compared some behavioral cues the researchers correlated with deception (in red), with this channel 9 interview back from Jan. 29
http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/sto...-last-seen-family/x1cqAwpraECekUgC8AKBug.cspx

Inconsistent facial expressions -- unable to consistently mimic genuine emotions or conceal inappropriate ones

Innocent relatives displayed sincere, full-face sadness
In video, GR glances at journalist from time to time, but often averts face. Expression in eyes and mouth don't match.

Faces of deceptive murderers were more likely to express mixed emotions -- a surprised brow..
Noted several time in video

a smirk, sudden smile in the face of an extremely grim subject
Appears jaunty and cheerful, even smiles when standing at table and chatting with journalist. When he's sitting on couch and talking about "hope" he actually smirks and giggles, but then quickly switches to sad affect.

In particular, the facial expressions of murderers were more likely to contain the raised upper lip of disgust (researchers hypothesized that disgust in this context was either an involuntary visceral reaction to the act of murder).
When he says, “…it’s unfair to the kids” – he raises his upper lip in disgust (and squints)

faster blinking
When he talks about it being “a mental roller-coaster” he blinks on almost every syllable in that sentence.

Speech clues
slower speech with more hesitations
Speech is mostly slow, and quite hesitating throughout time he's sitting on couch

Emotionally distancing words (not using “I&#8221
Uses 2nd or 3rd person at least half the time in the interview ("me" used once; "I" used twice in same sentence -- rest of time used pronouns "you" or "it's") as if distancing himself.

words with less emotional intensity
No intensity at all. Spoke as if reciting a script.

Never once in this interview did he express any sort of concern for Jennifer’s welfare or safety, no pleas for her return, no pleas for anyone who knew anything to contact LE – in fact, he never even said Jennifer’s name or ever really spoke about her. The total interview was about how "it" was unfair and brutal…and about his hope or lack of it.

 

[Hexe]

We know that Jennifer had made an appointment with a divorce lawyer prior to her death. But...why? :waitasec:

It's likely that GR was intending to divorce Jennifer. He was heard to say that he intended to spend the rest of his life with ES.

That makes me wonder...was divorce something they had mutually agreed on? Or...did GR want the divorce, and was Jennifer contesting it? As a Catholic, Jennifer could still receive the sacraments if she divorced (especially if she were the innocent party), but she would not be free to date or remarry (unless she were able to get an annulment).

I don't think he wanted to divorce Jen. No way. That would mean giving up the house, dividing the assets and looking like a total :censored: who dumped his wife to be with a lover. No, the divorce was never an option for him. I'm petty sure it was Jennifer who wanted to divorce. Yes, she was Catholic, but believe me, Catholic people do divorce too. It's nothing unusual these days. I think Jen discovered GR's affair with ES and that was the last straw for her.

Now, when she did it she took the control over their relationship and for the narcissists like GR loosing the control is the worst nightmare. Add to it all the financial issues and you have GR's motive. By killing Jen he took the control back, he avoided losing any money and house, (he thought so) he kept his reputation intact, being now a poor widower, what meant attention and sympathy. A perfect solution