NORWICH — The closing arguments in the murder trial of Ganesh R. Ramsaran were completed Tuesday in Chenango County Court, and the jury was read its instructions and was sent to begin deliberations at approximately 3 p.m.
Defense attorney Gilberto Garcia began with his closing Tuesday morning and said that his message has remained the same throughout the trial: the investigation was not complete.
“Your job is to be fair and logical,” said Garcia to the jury. “This is a man accused of committing a murder.”
Garcia told the jury that the most important element they should look at while examining the evidence is the element of intent.
Defense counsel gave an analogy of a wall with red and gray paint. He said if the evidence paints the wall only partially with gray areas, the verdict should return as not guilty.
“Based on the testimony and the evidence, you will see gray paint on the wall,” said Garcia. “That means there was not enough red paint to finish the wall.”
Garcia told the jury that the prosecution pressed the motive element, but said motive is not intent, and both much be present. “The existence of motive does not prove guilt,” Garcia said.
He said guilt cannot be proven because there was no evidence presented about intent.
Garcia said there was a death, a loss to children, a family and a community, and he said Jennifer was a great mother and beautiful woman. “I would never under any circumstances try to assassinate the character of someone so loving,” Garcia said. “One thing I know for sure, as a community, we want closure.”
Garcia said the police also wanted closure.
“At what moment did my client form an intent?” asked Garcia to the jury. “You haven’t heard anything about that.” Garcia said the fact his client fell in love with another woman, Eileen Sayles, does not show intent.
Said Garcia, “On Dec. 17, 2012, Ramsaran was a suspect in this case. As I said before, he was the easiest target. Police had that mindset from the very beginning.” As a side-note, Garcia said the authorities at the Chenango County Sheriff’s Office are very nice people.
Garcia pointed out to the jury that the signal of the phone on the Find My iPhone app was moving when Ramsaran was with former New Berlin Police Chief Dominic Commesso on the morning of Dec. 12, 2012. “Commesso was an honest man in his testimony and he too said the phone was moving. To know for sure, we would have had an expert from Apple. There was an Apple person on the witness list, but didn’t show up.”
Garcia said both Commesso and Ramsaran testified to the phone’s movement the morning of Dec. 12, 2012, but that Lieutenant Richard Cobb, lead detective, tried to discredit it.
“I don’t blame him,” said Garcia. “This is a fight.”
Garcia said, “McBride (Chenango County District Attorney) went after my client yesterday. It took a lot of courage for me not to make a show. But I wanted you to see that exchange and make a determination.” The attorney did say that his client may have made wise remarks, became defensive at times, or spoke too much.
Again, Garcia reminded the jury the government did not mention intent in its case. The defense said McBride had told them in the opening statements that the evidence was all circumstantial, and Garcia said it does not rise to sufficiency.
“Everybody acts differently,” said Garcia. “He shouldn’t have done this, he shouldn’t have said that … does that make him a killer?”
Garcia additionally reminded the jurors that “probably killed her isn’t enough.”
“The phone moving tells you there is some gray. The phone was moving while my client was with Commesso,” said Garcia.
Said Garcia, “Being a wise[guy] after your wife dies doesn’t make him a killer. Especially when you don’t have any evidence of what happened that morning, afternoon, or night of the 11th.”
The attorney reminded the jury that if they have questions about any evidence to ask questions.
Garcia said while the prosecution brought some motive, the element of intent has not been answered.
The defense reminded the jury that Jennifer’s father, Thomas Renz, testified the mud on Jennifer’s van was dry when he located it. Detective Kevin Powell testified that the mud was damp. “Two witnesses with different testimony,” said Garcia.
“McBride said the evidence would show the van was in plain view, but some officers did not drive that way, and Ramsaran went by it twice and didn’t see it. Was it really in plain view for five days?” Garcia asked. The attorney continued, “Had it been there for two days? That creates reasonable doubt.”
With regard to the map entered into to evidence, Garcia asked the jury to think if they had heard anything about how the defendant killed his wife, carried her into the van, left at approximately 11:30 a.m., and made it to the YMCA when he did.
“I have the easiest case in the world,” said Garcia. “It’s impossible to do in that amount of time.” Garcia told the jury they didn’t hear anything about that in the evidence. The attorney mentioned there was no expert testimony on distances or roads allegedly traveled, just as there was no expert testimony from Apple.
The attorney asked the jury to contemplate as to why the man who actually located the body did not testify. Instead, the man’s daughter — who also was the deputy who responded when Ramsaran found Jennifer’s phone — testified about identifying the nude female body.
Garcia added that while the jury was not permitted to visit the area where the body was found, he said there were houses in the vicinity, and it was unlikely no one saw whoever dropped the body.
Defense counsel directed the jury to certain page numbers of Jennifer’s phone records and asked the jury to study them.
Nude photos were exchanged between Ramsaran and Jennifer, and Ramsaran and Sayles. Garcia said whether that is morally acceptable or not was not the reason they were there.
The defense continued to stress that both motive and intent were necessary for the jury to return a guilty verdict.
“You heard nothing of how he killed her,” said Garcia. “Think with logic, not with intuition. There is no evidence of intent. Unfortunately, there is a lot that is not before you.”
Garcia said with regard to his client’s testimony on Monday, “Oh my goodness, If I had a pan I’d hit him over the head with it. He was eager to tell more than he had to. He’s not the ideal witness, but he withstood an excellent cross. However I still disagree the prosecution made its case.”
Garcia reminded the jury there was no cause of death but the manner was considered a homicide by the medical examiner.
“Jennifer should not have died,” said Garcia. “No matter what happened — which we don’t know because it’s not in evidence — Ramsaran did not kill her. The evidence doesn’t show it. It certainly doesn’t show intent.”
Asked Garcia, “How can you convict a man of murder when the evidence is this? Where is the van in any video?”
“My client was pounced on by the prosecution,” said Garcia. “He was honest. Defensive, and doesn’t listen to his own lawyer — but he is honest.”
The attorney said to convict, the jury needed to believe that Ramsaran “more than probably,” “more than likely,” or “a little more than likely,” killed his wife on Dec. 11, 2012.
Garcia said just because someone has an affair does not make them a killer. “If you killed someone, you’d make sure the phone was somewhere no one could find it,” said Garcia.
The attorney thanked the jurors for their time and said, “I believe I’m doing the right thing by defending a man who stands before you as innocent and is not guilty.”
The District Attorney next offered his closing remarks to the jury.
“Thank you all for your participation,” said McBride. “This is very important to the community, the defendant, the victim and the victim’s family.”
McBride told the jury the only question before them is whether or not Ramsaran intentionally killed his wife at their residence on Dec. 11, 2012. He added it was a circumstantial case.
McBride too used the analogy of red and gray paint Garcia used prior. McBride said, “It’d be bright red.”
“You have the evidence. You have Jennifer’s phone and everything on her phone,” said McBride. “Sometime thereafter, someone deleted that information.”
With regard to intent, McBride said that while the evidence is circumstantial, Ramsaran intended to kill his wife when he came back home from dropping their children off at school. “Because in his words, she was on the [expletive] game,” said McBride.
McBride asked the jurors to discuss what they’ve heard and seen and determine if the defendant is indeed guilty.
The DA said the case was about obsession, sex, deception, money and a man trying to get away with murdering his wife.
“Who was the last person to see Jennifer alive?” asked McBride. “Whoever dumped her there dumped her naked and already deceased. Who else in the world would have the motive?”
McBride said from the moment Ramsaran spoke to police he tried to deceive everyone he came into contact with, the same way McBride said the defendant deceived his wife about his affair with her best friend.
The Facebook exchanges with Sayles included mention of Sayles moving in and Ramsaran wanting Sayles to wear a ring, McBride told the jury. He said that was another indication of motive.
“When Dec. 11, 2012 rolled around it was time to get rid of his wife,” said McBride. “Beyond a reasonable doubt, he killed his wife.”
McBride said the text Ramsaran sent to Sayles on Dec. 2, 2012 that read the defendant would do “everything and anything” for Sayles showed the intent to kill his wife nine days later.
“His wife is dead, and he is going around like nothing is happening,” said McBride.
McBride told the jury Jennifer wasn’t getting attention from her husband, so she spent time — up to six hours per day — playing a game on her iPod Touch and chatting with Rob Houston.
“Thank God Houston was there, because he told us that at 8:13 a.m. she left the game without explanation,” said McBride. “That had never happened before. Jennifer was never heard from or seen again.” McBride said Jennifer had told Houston she was not going to Syracuse that day, that she was going to go shopping later in the week with Sayles.
“You have seen him on the stand, and the way he acts,” McBride said of Ramsaran. “He wanted to get rid of his wife. He tells us she sleeps naked. It’s very unusual for a woman who left her family to be found naked.”
Said McBride about the defendant, “He killed her, he moved the body, and he was careful about it.”
McBride said Ramsaran dumped the body in a private area, then had to dump the phone in a location where everyone would think was on her shopping route. McBride said that while Ramsaran testified to having been wet when entering the YMCA, the photos show that he is not wet.
The DA said the defendant’s deception continued.
Added McBride, Ramsaran never went looking for the mother of his children or trace the route she would have taken because she wasn’t missing. “He knew where Jennifer was because he placed her there,” he said.
“Instead of looking for his wife, he’s at his daughter’s concert in public as if nothing is wrong,” McBride said to the jury.
Jennifer’s father, Thomas Renz, found Jennifer’s van. “(Ramsaran) didn’t want to find all the evidence, he wanted his father-in-law to find some,” McBride said. “The defendant’s story doesn’t matter. You get to make the determination as to who is telling the truth.”
McBride told the jury only one person in the world would have the motive to kill Jennifer, the defendant.
“There is overwhelming evidence beyond any reasonable doubt,” McBride said. “That’s what justice for Jennifer means.”

The photo above shows the table in front of the juror's seats with the evidence submitted by the prosecution.