Found Deceased NY - Jennifer Ramsaran, 36, Chenango County, 11 Dec 2012 - #13

[Montjoy]

i hate to say it, but i think this case is going to involve circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is what most crime scene (and for that matter trial) evidence is. Stuff like DNA, fingerprints, autopsy information -- all of that is circumstantial -- evidence that requires an intervening inference. Direct evidence means witness statements and confessions. So, I wouldn't be too worried if the case is decided by only circumstantial evidence -- that's what happens in many if most trials. In fact, it would appear that this case will be decided by *only* circumstantial evidence, as there is no witness or confession...and this is not cause to worry.

 

[sleepinoz]

http://thedailystar.com/localnews/x1612843462/Jailed-Ramsaran-in-new-push-for-bail

 

[Jilllian]

http://thedailystar.com/localnews/x1612843462/Jailed-Ramsaran-in-new-push-for-bail

ugh. just ugh.

we all say this coming though. this is gonna be one heckava long trial. still no word on when it will start but possibly not until november or later

 

[nursebeeme]

snip from that link:

Meanwhile, the Ramsaran defense team is asking Revoir to dismiss the indictment, contending the grand jury would have received “inappropriate and unlawful testimony” if a Norwich matrimonial lawyer, Diane M. DiStefano, was called to testify about the contact she had with Jennifer Ramsaran.

“There could have been no other purposed for the prosecutor to present Diane DisStefano, Esq., to the Grand Jury other than to provide that Grand Jury with information regarding an alleged marital rift and/or marital discord...” Ackerman wrote in motion papers.

Ganesh Ramsaran has acknowledged he had an affair with a married woman who had been a close friend of his wife and who became his running partner last year.

Ackerman argued that all communications between Jennifer Ramsaran and DiStefano are subject to attorney-client privilege, a status he said “unquestionably and absolutely survives Jennifer Ramsaran’s death.” Any information transmitted as the result of the attorney-client relationship “must remain confidential even after death,” he said.

they are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks :no: What a ridiculous argument :twocents: for the defense atty to make... surly he knows the second part I bolded.....

 

[all4justice]

snip from that link:



they are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks :no: What a ridiculous argument :twocents: for the defense atty to make... surly he knows the second part I bolded.....

The privilege is intended to protect the client though. Presumaby, Jennifer would want all relevant evidence to be heard regarding her murder. That being the case, my guess is that communications between Jennifer and her attorney would most likely be permitted since they are relevant to this case. Shortly after Jennifer consulted a lawyer she was murdered, allegedly by the husband she perhaps intended to divorce. Definitely relevant. IMO, JMO

Sent from my SPH-D700

 

[nanasbabes]

here are some pictures we got im still waiting for the rest. you can look on my info page and if anyone can post them that would be great. I don't have pc knowledge lol.

 

[nanasbabes]

im trying this lol hope it works!

 

[zwiebel]

The privilege is intended to protect the client though. Presumaby, Jennifer would want all relevant evidence to be heard regarding her murder. That being the case, my guess is that communications between Jennifer and her attorney would most likely be permitted since they are relevant to this case. Shortly after Jennifer consulted a lawyer she was murdered, allegedly by the husband she perhaps intended to divorce. Definitely relevant. IMO, JMO

Sent from my SPH-D700

A judge waived that privilege in the Drew Peterson (ugh) trial, saying roughly, that it was in the client's best interests and she (Stacey Peterson) would have wanted it to be waived herself. Stacey was Drew's second wife who disappeared shortly after she consulted a divorce attorney. She has still not been found. Drew was on trial for murdering his first wife.

Unfortunately, I think, defence did manage to get a rider (not the legal term) that the attorney was not allowed to mention Stacey's name in any connection at all to her possibly being a second murder victim of Drews. It would have rendered his testimony useless, except defence decided to call him, and ask him a question that led to his being able to reply that 'Stacey told me Drew told her he'd killed Kathleen'

You could have heard a pin drop in that court room, though all that was heard, in fact, was the other defence lawyer shouting at his colleague to shut up.

I strongly suspect attorney client privilege will be waived in this case. Especially if there is any evidence that the privileged info subsequently entered the public domain. Let's hope Jennifer told lots of people about her meeting with the divorce attorney, and they are prepared to come forward and say the info is already public knowledge.

 

[zwiebel]

im trying this lol hope it works!

It did, and I saw the others in your album too. Thanks!

 

[zwiebel]

I am beginning to get the impression that GR and his attorney are so sure he will be found guilty, they are just throwing everything at trying to make sure a trial never takes place.

 

[zwiebel]

Sorry, correction. Kathleen and Stacey were third and fourth wives.

The attorney's evidence he was able to give after privilege was waived was classed as hearsay. Listen to what the jurors say aboutt how it was the hearsay evidence that really swung them;

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/video?clipId=7698954&autostart=true

 

[Jilllian]

snip from that link:



they are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks :no: What a ridiculous argument :twocents: for the defense atty to make... surly he knows the second part I bolded.....

and also throwing things out there so he can appeal at a later date once convicted.

 

[Jilllian]

The privilege is intended to protect the client though. Presumaby, Jennifer would want all relevant evidence to be heard regarding her murder. That being the case, my guess is that communications between Jennifer and her attorney would most likely be permitted since they are relevant to this case. Shortly after Jennifer consulted a lawyer she was murdered, allegedly by the husband she perhaps intended to divorce. Definitely relevant. IMO, JMO

Sent from my SPH-D700

BBM

Does anyone remember Remy saying Jenn has the appointment with her divorce attorney coming up? I mean, it wasn't stated months back that she had already been. If I remember correctly, reports said she had an upcoming appt. with her divorce atty. Anyone know? Not that it matters...i just want to understand correctly.

 

[sleepinoz]

and also throwing things out there so he can appeal at a later date once convicted.

I think his lawyer is just using up all of his money.

 

[sleepinoz]

BBM

Does anyone remember Remy saying Jenn has the appointment with her divorce attorney coming up? I mean, it wasn't stated months back that she had already been. If I remember correctly, reports said she had an upcoming appt. with her divorce atty. Anyone know? Not that it matters...i just want to understand correctly.

I'd have to check back, but there was something about she had an appointment with a lawyer but didn't go, don't think it came from him though.

 

[zwiebel]

It would be better for the case against him if it could be shown GR did have knowledge Jennifer was seeing a divorce attorney. I know some insiders said she was trying to save the marriage, but that was earlier. There may be someone else who knows that GR knew, and is willing to testify to that. I am thinking of one person in particular.

Myself, I think GR has a battle on his hands in the form of DA McBride who is not going to be trifled with on this case. I don't think GR is up to it. I think he is desperate to get out and control and 'fix' things again, but in my opinion he was never in control in the first place. He just thought he was.

 

[zwiebel]

I think I need to update the media links soon, we've had quite a few new articles. I do admire the way some reporters stay with a story - they earn themselves a lot of loyal followers that way.

 

[Solus]

It would be better for the case against him if it could be shown GR did have knowledge Jennifer was seeing a divorce attorney. I know some insiders said she was trying to save the marriage, but that was earlier. There may be someone else who knows that GR knew, and is willing to testify to that. I am thinking of one person in particular.

He never mentioned to me that Jen was going to see an attorney.

 

[SouthAussie]

It may be one of those privileged pieces of information that ES/EB/EM (whoever the heck she is today) and her divorce attorney know.

In which case, I hope she can find the honesty within herself to reveal that info to the court.

 

[Solus]

It may be one of those privileged pieces of information that ES/EB/EM (whoever the heck she is today) and her divorce attorney know.

In which case, I hope she can find the honesty within herself to reveal that info to the court.

Why would Jen tell ES that she would be seeing a divorce attorney? Knowing that she would tell GR. Assuming that Jen knew about the affair, which it seems is the general consensus.

Why would ES tell her divorce attorney that the man's wife that she is having affair with was also seeing an attorney?

I can't think of a reason for either of the two conversations to take place.