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

[SouthAussie]

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.

To let the other woman know that she wasn’t a fool and knew what was going on.

To let the other woman know she wasn’t going to take his bad behaviour any more.

To shake things up a bit.

Because she was upset with the both of them.

To let the other woman know that she intended to fight for her kids.

To let the other woman know it wasn’t going to continue in the way she/they may have planned.

To let the other woman know that if she thought GR was going to support her, that he’d still be paying Jen for his kids support.

Maybe the other woman said "I'm seeing so-and-so about a divorce" and Jen said "me too".

And maybe Jen just didn't care whether the other woman told GR. Maybe she already told him herself. Jen wasn't the one who was hiding things.


Why would the other woman tell her own attorney? Why did she tell her divorce attorney that she was having an affair with GR? Maybe she was just spilling it all. Or maybe it was relevant. If Jen sued for divorce, GR wouldn't have to. And maybe that formed part of the big picture. They had obviously been seeing each other on the sly for quite a while .. it wasn't a one-night-stand.

 

[sleepinoz]

And maybe that formed part of the big picture. They had obviously been seeing each other on the sly for quite a while .. it wasn't a one-night-stand.

RSBM

BBM

TRYST - :floorlaugh:

:blushing: Sorry couldn't help myself

 

[Solus]

http://m.thedailystar.com/thedailystar/pm_112947/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=6W7Kk7L0

It appears that Jen did visit with an attorney. I thought from previous conversations that Jen had made an appointment but didn't go.

It makes me wonder if the lawyer told Jen how much she would get from GR every month including the house. Then Jen passed that on to GR in an argument. That could have seriously interfered with GR's plans.

Anyone know the dates the visit with Jen's lawyer took place on?

 

[rickblaine]

I don't believe Jennifer visited a lawyer re a divorce. However I do believe she had an appointment scheduled for Dec 18 with one, one week after she disappeared.

 

[Solus]

I don't believe Jennifer visited a lawyer re a divorce. However I do believe she had an appointment scheduled for Dec 18 with one, one week after she disappeared.

I wouldn't imagine she would have much information if Jen never met with her.

 

[SouthAussie]

Perhaps the information that the other woman was given in her own appointment with her own divorce attorney – re: child custody, child support, housing, possible alimony – was enough for GR (and Jen) to be able to quietly gauge what GR’s potential losses and liabilities could be should Jen divorce him.

So when GR learned that his previously mild-mannered, easy-going wife was going to visit a divorce attorney (and was serious about it, having silently suffered enough and after being betrayed by both her husband and by her ‘best friend&#8217 he had a pretty good idea of what he would lose and what he would need to pay out.

And I do believe GR knew that Jen was going to see a divorce attorney. Whether it was Jen who told him, or the other woman who passed the info along, or both. I think that it was probably the reason for his change in attitude while he was away .. in November, was it?

I also believe that the other woman would have known – either from GR because they evidently discussed future plans, or from Jen for all the reasons I stated above, or both. Many, many women confront the other woman in a state of anger and hurt when they discover an affair – especially when a ‘best friend’ is involved – that is the biggest no-no.

 

[Rochestergirl]

I wouldn't imagine she would have much information if Jen never met with her.

I imagine Jennifer could have had a phone consultation with the lawyer and gave him/her the basics and from there they scheduled an in-person meeting. So she could have told the attorney her husband was having an affair and with who.

 

[Solus]

I don't think he knew that she was going to talk to a lawyer when he was here. He kept saying that she wasn't aware of the affair.

Is it typical when looking for a divorce attorney to discuss the details over the phone before you go in?

 

[SmoothOperator]

I don't think he knew that she was going to talk to a lawyer when he was here. He kept saying that she wasn't aware of the affair.

Is it typical when looking for a divorce attorney to discuss the details over the phone before you go in?

Just depends on the attorney, IMO.. While I know some attorneys wouldn't dare be discussing any details whatsoever with a first time client over the phone(nor allow their paralegal to do so either)..however on the other hand there absolutely are attorneys who do somewhat consultations via the phone(many times not with the attorney themselves, but rather with the attorney's paralegal, et al)..and yes, I've seen some phone consultations get quite detailed, whereas most are more generalized..

But again its all dependant upon the attorney and it varies greatly up and down both ends of the spectrum as to how much detail one would get into via phone consultation..jmo, fme.

**Please forgive the limitations that come w/my posting via mobile ATM**

 

[Magiefeu]

I think she was aware... How much exactly... not sure but she definitely alluded to knowing something going on..

 

[sleepinoz]

Hearing to reduce bail denied - YAY

http://thedailystar.com/localnews/x934951528/Ramsarans-bid-for-hearing-denied

 

[Solus]

Hearing to reduce bail denied - YAY

http://thedailystar.com/localnews/x934951528/Ramsarans-bid-for-hearing-denied

From the article:
" and noted that there are a number of examples of murder cases being prosecuted without the method of the killing being detailed for jurors."

Statements like this make me nervous about the case. This sounds like they don't know. Or at least can't prove.

 

[Jilllian]

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.

go joe!

 

[Jilllian]

RSBM

BBM

TRYST - :floorlaugh:

:blushing: Sorry couldn't help myself

:silly:

 

[Solus]

Just depends on the attorney, IMO.. While I know some attorneys wouldn't dare be discussing any details whatsoever with a first time client over the phone(nor allow their paralegal to do so either)..however on the other hand there absolutely are attorneys who do somewhat consultations via the phone(many times not with the attorney themselves, but rather with the attorney's paralegal, et al)..and yes, I've seen some phone consultations get quite detailed, whereas most are more generalized..

But again its all dependant upon the attorney and it varies greatly up and down both ends of the spectrum as to how much detail one would get into via phone consultation..jmo, fme.

**Please forgive the limitations that come w/my posting via mobile ATM**

After asking several people the same question. It seems like guys called and scheduled appointments to discuss their situation. Women seemed to give a brief overview on the phone call.

 

[Solus]

Is there still a hearing tomorrow?

 

[GhostEyes]

After asking several people the same question. It seems like guys called and scheduled appointments to discuss their situation. Women seemed to give a brief overview on the phone call.

I think this is irrelevant. Every lawyer and person, regardless of whether they are male or female does what they are comfortable with. In my experience lawyers rarely just talk over the phone. They are looking for $$$ and want you to sign a retainer, and they also feel that it is not safe to talk on the phone. But, neither here nor there, only the particular facts matter. If you don't know, then, you can't use conjecture to determine what happened. The facts will speak for themselves.

<modsnip>

 

[zwiebel]

After asking several people the same question. It seems like guys called and scheduled appointments to discuss their situation. Women seemed to give a brief overview on the phone call.

To refer to the Drew Peterson case again, the attorney who gave devastating evidence in the case against him only ever spoke to his wife Stacey on the phone, once. The call was hurried and interrupted by Drew himself, I think, asking Stacey who she was talking to. But in that short time, she told him enough to help get Drew convicted for the murder of his previous wife. I hope one day it may help convict him of the murder of Stacey too - though I'd rather there was a deal where he gave up Stacey's location, myself.

I don't think it will be crucial to Jennifer's case to determine exactly how she died myself. The fact she was found naked almost certainly precludes suicide or accident, and her car and phone being found in other locations reinforces that.

It all leads to a conclusion of murder really - even without knowing the info the DA has. A jury will then have to decide who had motive, means and opportunity to do it. There aren't many candidates, and one of them will be on trial. I'm certain Ganesh will be convicted myself, and I'm an incessant worrier.

I am more worried about how much more damage may be caused to Jennifer's loved ones during the trial, and what lengths Ganesh might go to. I think about his children, and wish he would make their futures easier, by doing the right thing.

I hope it is not too devastating for anyone close to the case, because I don't think devastation is something Jennifer would have wished on anyone, even though it visited her.

 

[zwiebel]

BBM

I think this is irrelevant. Every lawyer and person, regardless of whether they are male or female does what they are comfortable with. In my experience lawyers rarely just talk over the phone. They are looking for $$$ and want you to sign a retainer, and they also feel that it is not safe to talk on the phone. But, neither here nor there, only the particular facts matter. If you don't know, then, you can't use conjecture to determine what happened. The facts will speak for themselves.

<modsnip>

I'm not sure that's how the law - or even life - works really. How to decide what a fact is, for a start? If a cat's in a box and I can't see it, can it be a fact that it exists, for me? I could use reasoning though - loud meows and scratching might encourage me to deliver a verdict that there was definitely a cat in the box, if I was asked to reach one.

In trials, it is only the judge and jury who speak in the end, not facts. Facts can't speak for themselves - they need people to do it for them.

 

[zwiebel]

:silly:

I'm sure I saw something somewhere that the 'tryst' was an an old-fashioned turn of phrase turned out by our Joe, not GR or who-we-thought-it-was.

If it was Joe, it takes on a different meaning, I think. He may ( just guessing here) have been struggling to present an article in terms that would not result in a load of unpleasantness - or even worse, the article being pulled exactly when Jennifer really needed the media to highlight her case. Tryst is a word that's rarely used now, but if it was Joe, I think his motives were good.

If I'm mistaken and it was used by others, it may have been to reduce the impact of a husband and a best friend's betrayal of Jennifer. In which case, it's not only ridiculous, it's despicable.

ETA Sorry, what I quoted doesn't give a clue what I'm replying to - it was a post about the use of the word 'tryst' for affair/adultery/betrayal etc