NORWICH — Witnesses for the prosecution in murder trial of Ganesh R. Ramsaran continued Monday where forensic scientists took the stand to identify blood found in the Ramsaran’s home and minivan.
While numerous samples were collected from the Ramsaran’s Sheff Road home when New York State Police searched it in December 2012, many of the swabs did not match the DNA of the late Jennifer Ramsaran.
Ganesh R. Ramsaran is accused of killing his wife, and Chenango County District Attorney Joseph McBride said the circumstantial evidence will show the jury that Ramsaran murdered his wife in their home early in the morning on Dec 11, 2012, covered up the crime in their home, dumped her body in Pharsalia, placed her iPhone on Moon Hill Road in Plymouth, dropped her van at Plank Road Manner Apartments in Norwich, and then ran to the Norwich Family YMCA — where McBride said Ramsaran made sure he told various people that his wife was shopping in Syracuse.
Ramsaran reported his wife missing the evening of Dec. 11, 2012, and voluntarily provided information — including computers, his phone, and other electronics — to authorities.
According to witness testimony, Ramsaran told police that after Jennifer left on a shopping trip between 10:30 and 11 a.m., he ran down to the YMCA, and explained the route he took. Prior testimony does not show Ramsaran on video footage from various businesses along that route.
Lieutenant Richard Cobb, lead investigator on the case, took the stand Monday and audio was played from a March 22, 2013 interview with Ramsaran where he was asked to explain his story to authorities once again. Half of the audio was played for the jury; the rest is expected on Tuesday.
Daniel Myers with the New York State Police crime lab in Albany testified as the forensic scientist who conducted the DNA tests.
According to Myers, nine of the blood samples collected from the Ramsaran home belonged to one of the children, and two others matched another of Jennifer and Ganesh’s children.
There were some swabs — from the home and the van — that did match to Jennifer’s DNA only.
Other samples, according to Myers, contained the DNA of multiple donors. On one sample, Myers said Jennifer was a major contributor to the sample, but the other donor could not be identified with certainty.
The spot remover that was collected from the Ramsaran’s bedroom dresser was found to have the DNA of one of the Ramsarans’ children, not the defendant or victim.
Myers said he received the samples to test on April 1, 2013 and examined them from April 2-19, 2013. He filed his analysis on May 8, 2013.
A sweatshirt volunteered to police by the defendant had a bloodstain that was a mixture of Ganesh Ramsaran’s blood with at least one additional donor. Myers said Jennifer could not be excluded as a possible contributor to the sample.
“Not excluded is basically a step back when I’m looking at a profile,” said Myers during cross-examination by Gilberto Garcia, attorney for the defendant. Myers added that there is less information; not enough to say there is a good correlation to say whose DNA was mixed.
Myers said, “This profile is 1.661 quadrillion times more likely to be observed if the donors were Ganesh and Jennifer Ramsaran, rather than if the donors were two randomly selected, unrelated individuals.”
Garcia asked, “If you say not excluded as a contributor does it mean you found no match?”
“Not a match, no,” Myers said.
Myers said not enough matched to to say conclusively that Jennifer’s DNA was on the sweatshirt, but there was no data that excluded her either.
Ronald Swislosky, a road patrol sergeant from the Chenango County Sheriff’s Office took the stand and said he examined Jennifer’s iPhone, and found only a smudge print, no fingerprints of value.
Carl E. Smith of the Binghamton Police Department testified regarding the data extracted from the Ramsaran’s computers and electronics.
Smith said when he received several evidence items from the CCSO, he and a colleague came up with a “game plan” for combing through the items. According to Smith, there were multiple user names on the computer he examined — including different user names for the children.
Smith told the jury he located 99 images of lewd and partially nude photos of the victim and Ramsaran and two videos. He additionally located approximately 15,170 emails.
When Garcia asked Smith to pull up a photo that he was referring to (not displayed to the jury), Garcia asked Smith to state the date the image was taken. The images Smith referred to as “lewd” were dated April, 2010; November, 2010; and February, 2011.
“Can you find me lewd images from 2012?” Garcia asked Smith.
Smith found images of Eileen Sayles — a prior witness for the prosecution, the woman Ramsaran was having an affair with, and the victim’s best friend — but Smith did not say they were lewd.
Smith said he found a sequence of images taken Halloween, 2012, from FaceTime between Ramsaran and the victim with her breasts exposed, but said both looked as though they were smiling.
Smith testified he does not use the dictionary definition of lewd, and that the definition is based on his training in computer forensics. He added there were no lewd images with animals, penetration, or more than two parties. He said lewd would include something that is a sexual act, someone dressed provocatively, or posing in a manner that is simulating a sexual act.
Additional information that Smith said he found on the computer that stood out to him included a purchase of lingerie in two different sizes, travel arrangements, a return email from the Find my iPhone app, and an email sent from the defendant to the defendant.
Other information Smith found included casual family photos, family events, games, and typical word documents.
Lt. Cobb’s testimony is set to continue 9 a.m. Tuesday morning.