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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #361

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    95.7 KB · Views: 234
  • #362
And why the heck is he smiling?
 
  • #363
Maybe he was promised a Macca on his "day out" that day? :eat:

:banghead:
 
  • #364
  • #365
  • #366
He looks like a little impish boy. jmo
 
  • #367
  • #368
Here's the article from today's Daily Star, by Joe Mahoney:

http://www.thedailystar.com/localnews/x1927864761/Judge-to-weigh-evidence-allowed-in-Ramsaran-trial

July 16, 2014
Judge to weigh evidence allowed in Ramsaran trial

NORWICH — A hearing expected to determine which prosecution evidence will be admitted and which will be suppressed was completed Tuesday in the case of accused murderer Ganesh “Remy” Ramsaran of South New Berlin, charged with killing his wife, Jennifer, during a time when he had been having an affair with her close friend.

The courtroom where the daylong hearing was held — with Ramsaran, 39, in attendance — was closed to the public and press by Chenango County Judge Frank Revoir.

In so ruling, the judge stated in his decision that “after considering all of the arguments of counsel and conducting my own independent legal research, the Court has reached the conclusion that in this particular case, that Mr. Ramsaran’s right to a fair trial would be compromised were the Court to have the pretrial hearings published and subject to public viewing. Particularly due to the high publicity that this case has encountered.”

In New York, the public has a presumptive right to attend judicial proceedings, and the judge’s decision was protested by a reporter for The Daily Star to the state Office of Court Administration.

A spokesman for the agency, David Bookstaver, said after conferring with Revoir that the judge believes Ramsaran’s right to a fair trial trumps the right of the public to attend the hearing. Bookstaver said Revoir explained he was basing his decision on the “unusual circumstances,” noting the case against Ramsaran is based on circumstantial evidence. Ultimately, he added, the judge felt the defendant’s right to a fair trial “trumps” the right of the public to attend the pre-trial hearing.

The request to close the courtroom came from Ramsaran’s new defense lawyer, Gil Garcia. Chenango District Attorney Joseph McBride took not position on the closure, though did ask that the parents of the late Jennifer Ramsaran, Thomas and Carol Renz, and the sister of the alleged victim, Joann Buff, be allowed to attend the proceeding. Revoir granted that request, and the family members were ushered into the courthouse while the reporter remained in a downstairs lobby.

In his closure decision, Revoir expressed concern with the considerable amount of attention the case has been getting in both the news media and on a social media page known as “Justice for Jennifer.” Carol Renz and Joann Buff are among the scores of people who have posted comments on that page.
Ganesh Ramsaran was also involved in publicizing what he called his wife’s unexplained disappearance in December 2012, granting numerous interviews, including several with The Daily Star, before his wife’s body was located 2½ months after he reported her missing. her .


<Mod Snip>

:jail:
 
  • #369
Whoops.
And here's the link:
http://www.thedailystar.com/localnews/x1927864761/Judge-to-weigh-evidence-allowed-in-Ramsaran-trial

Ackerman, GR's previous attorney, wanted evidence (blood in the house) and statements GR made to authorities suppressed, as he wasn't read his Miranda Rights during the interview.

"Ackerman said he doubts Ganesh Ramsaran can get a fair trial in Chenango County, noting he believes public opinion has been turned against his former client by the Facebook group Justice for Jennifer."

Right. I'm sure they can get a jury of GR's peers that isn't into social media. Pulling at straws.
 
  • #370
It seems strange that GR's previous attorney is sharing all this information with the media. Not that I care about GRs rights but isn't this info attorney/client protected. He seems to be reinforcing that "he" was going to be doing all the same things GRs new attorney is doing. Its sort of funny that he is defending himself when I would think most people wouldn't take GRs statements about his attorney that seriously.
 
  • #371
Thank you for the updates Jillian.. I think of Jennifer nearly every day, even if I'm not always commenting here. It's frustrating sometimes with the delays and closed hearings but I don't want there to be a single crack that little man can get through.
 
  • #372
  • #373
:bump: for Jennifer
 
  • #374
Most murder cases are circumstantial and a judge should know that. Very few have eyewitnesses and if he confessed, there would not be a trial...
 
  • #375
Here's the article from today's Daily Star, by Joe Mahoney:

http://www.thedailystar.com/localnews/x1927864761/Judge-to-weigh-evidence-allowed-in-Ramsaran-trial

July 16, 2014
Judge to weigh evidence allowed in Ramsaran trial

NORWICH — A hearing expected to determine which prosecution evidence will be admitted and which will be suppressed was completed Tuesday in the case of accused murderer Ganesh “Remy” Ramsaran of South New Berlin, charged with killing his wife, Jennifer, during a time when he had been having an affair with her close friend.

The courtroom where the daylong hearing was held — with Ramsaran, 39, in attendance — was closed to the public and press by Chenango County Judge Frank Revoir.

In so ruling, the judge stated in his decision that “after considering all of the arguments of counsel and conducting my own independent legal research, the Court has reached the conclusion that in this particular case, that Mr. Ramsaran’s right to a fair trial would be compromised were the Court to have the pretrial hearings published and subject to public viewing. Particularly due to the high publicity that this case has encountered.”

In New York, the public has a presumptive right to attend judicial proceedings, and the judge’s decision was protested by a reporter for The Daily Star to the state Office of Court Administration.

A spokesman for the agency, David Bookstaver, said after conferring with Revoir that the judge believes Ramsaran’s right to a fair trial trumps the right of the public to attend the hearing. Bookstaver said Revoir explained he was basing his decision on the “unusual circumstances,” noting the case against Ramsaran is based on circumstantial evidence. Ultimately, he added, the judge felt the defendant’s right to a fair trial “trumps” the right of the public to attend the pre-trial hearing.

The request to close the courtroom came from Ramsaran’s new defense lawyer, Gil Garcia. Chenango District Attorney Joseph McBride took not position on the closure, though did ask that the parents of the late Jennifer Ramsaran, Thomas and Carol Renz, and the sister of the alleged victim, Joann Buff, be allowed to attend the proceeding. Revoir granted that request, and the family members were ushered into the courthouse while the reporter remained in a downstairs lobby.

In his closure decision, Revoir expressed concern with the considerable amount of attention the case has been getting in both the news media and on a social media page known as “Justice for Jennifer.” Carol Renz and Joann Buff are among the scores of people who have posted comments on that page.
Ganesh Ramsaran was also involved in publicizing what he called his wife’s unexplained disappearance in December 2012, granting numerous interviews, including several with The Daily Star, before his wife’s body was located 2½ months after he reported her missing. her .


<Mod Snip>

:jail:

<BBM for Focus>

Hey folks...Good to see everyone still fighting for justice for Jennifer Ramsaran..

Imo, Judge Revoir, should honor the citizen's right to know what goes on behind the closed doors of a perceived broken Justice System..
Imo, Criminal Profiler Pat Brown says it best….

We could use a strong accountability system not dependent on appeals, but rather oversight. The public/citizens have a right to know exactly how decisions are made and cases are handled. It does not have to be in the midst of the case but certainly afterward there should be transparency. If there isn’t, how can we address issues of corruption, incompetence, and error?

We need to know in order to fix problems and hold people accountable for what is supposed to be work done on behalf of the citizens. Somehow “the interest of the state” seems to preclude the citizenry which is odd considering the state IS the citizenry, well, at least in a democratic republic with a constitution..

"Luv this Quote by Pat Brown, she is very perceptive" JMO
 
  • #376
Questions:

1) Why should a group of citizens promoting justice for a murder victim be concerning to the judge?
2) Why should a high-profile case be concerning to the judge?
3) Solus - [modsnip]
 
  • #377
Questions:

1) Why should a group of citizens promoting justice for a murder victim be concerning to the judge?
2) Why should a high-profile case be concerning to the judge?
3) Solus - [modsnip]

I believe it's due to the content of the pre-trial information tainting a jury pool. If the judge disallows certain evidence and that evidence is posted online then that could be potentially used during an appeal. It's not that the group is concerning just that the information they may share is a cause for concern.
 
  • #378
Thanks Solus, that makes sense. The newspaper article only mentioned ES as a material witness. I wonder who else will be called? Also, the former lawyer that got ditched is saying Jennifer couldn't have died at home because "people" saw her that day. Why is this the first anyone has heard of that? I mean, back when she was missing, we were told that the last person who saw her was GR. Wouldn't this person or persons who supposedly saw her that day have spoken up back then? Is he just blowing smoke or what?
 
  • #379
Miranda warning? So, Ackerman, the former Defense lawyer, says that in the months following Jennifer's disappearance and leading up to GR's arrest:jail:, that he was questioned several times by police and also made public statements :lol: and that what he said in the police interviews and also in his media interviews shouldn't be allowed in trial because the police didn't read him his Miranda Rights or let him know he was a suspect. So, I looked that up.
"If a person is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime"
"Indeed, a person who has reason to believe that he or she is a potential suspect should politely decline to answer questions, at least until after consulting an attorney."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html

I guess Ackerman needs to go back to first year law school.
 
  • #380
Just three weeks till jury selection commences and the trial gets underway!

But who's counting .....?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
2,504
Total visitors
2,650

Forum statistics

Threads
632,502
Messages
18,627,730
Members
243,172
Latest member
neckdeepinstories
Back
Top