Found Deceased Canada - Jessica Newman, 24, Calgary, 10 March 2015 #1 *Arrest*

[sheshecanada]

... and that becomes the concern in this case. If a murder trial hinges on an alleged "coerced" piece of information, LE does not want that letter presented as evidence, along with the statement by Sgt. Hebert that the letter was a tactic to gather information.

The accused only need testify that whoever forced the confession out of them, accused them of being the person misleading LE as mentioned in the letter. Whether they are telling the truth or not then will be up to a judge... who will most likely err on the side of fair trial, and admonish LE for play acting a letter. There won't be any excuse for anything that goes wrong with this letter. They will be responsible for any consequences of the "tactic".

It's one thing to send her a letter that she leaks herself... it's a completely different story to ask her to leak it and then use that sort of language. You don't even see that language in press conferences.

I read the letter four times because I doubted the authenticity at first, I thought maybe someone was playing games with her poor family. I get what you are saying for sure, but I am not a police officer and do not know what their plan is.

Off topic: Once I started reading about SM I was just fascinated as there are some interesting stories online out there to be read. The whole story imo is a little bit of truth and lots of lies from both ends.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I read the letter four times because I doubted the authenticity at first, I thought maybe someone was playing games with her poor family. I get what you are saying for sure, but I am not a police officer and do not know what their plan is.

Off topic: Once I started reading about SM I was just fascinated as there are some interesting stories online out there to be read. The whole story imo is a little bit of truth and lots of lies from both ends.

There are so many angles to that story. Here's another:

mindytran.com

In this case, it seems very lackadaisical on LE's part to first release a picture of a potential witness, thus exposing him to any alleged perps, and then releasing this letter which can only do harm legally if there is foul play involved.

It really seems like they have evidence she is just hiding and all this is an attempt to scare her or whoever is helping her to finally come clean.

We've heard the ex wanted her to have 50/50, but haven't heard that she wanted it, except for the mumbly bumbly statement from the roommate. Was she about to receive that 50% and all the responsibility that goes with it the very next day? The roommate was concerned about someone taking the dog, but not whatever furniture and clothes for the child she was going to start parenting. If the ex needed her to take the child because of a job, it sounds like a very near future plan.

If she shows up to court not prepared to parent, then it all goes south... especially if Child Services are involved. If she doesn't show up without good reason, it also all goes south...

 

[sheshecanada]

I read that mindytran.com, fascinating really.
Also Brianne Wolgram is another that has some interesting theories online.

Do you think JRN is in hiding ??

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I read that mindytran.com, fascinating really.
Also Brianne Wolgram is another that has some interesting theories online.

Do you think JRN is in hiding ??

I don't know. I'm just reading actions and motivations.

Imagine your horror if your face was plastered everywhere as having critical information to a possible murder. I have to think LE had that talk before releasing the picture of AP... which leads to the possibility that either they think that he is involved in her disappearance, and/or that there is no threat to his safety.

It is the same with the letter. They had to have discussed the legal ramifications of releasing it. There has to be a reason they aren't concerned about the future trial, or releasing that the investigation is deeper than the public first thought. Why divulge that?

The key part to the letter is the paragraph that includes the fact they have uncovered possibilities of why she disappeared. It starts with an in depth explanation that they talked to people she knew, and investigated her life... and reads like they are speaking directly to her.

Again, I could be completely wrong.

 

[sheshecanada]

I don't know. I'm just reading actions and motivations.

Imagine your horror if your face was plastered everywhere as having critical information to a possible murder. I have to think LE had that talk before releasing the picture of AP... which leads to the possibility that either they think that he is involved in her disappearance, and/or that there is no threat to his safety.

It is the same with the letter. They had to have discussed the legal ramifications of releasing it. There has to be a reason they aren't concerned about the future trial, or releasing that the investigation is deeper than the public first thought. Why divulge that?

The key part to the letter is the paragraph that includes the fact they have uncovered possibilities of why she disappeared. It starts with an in depth explanation that they talked to people she knew, and investigated her life... and reads like they are speaking directly to her.

Again, I could be completely wrong.

You are probably wrong....jk lol. I just couldn't help myself
This is a tough one, you do make a good point about the wording of the letter and legal ramifications.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

You are probably wrong....jk lol. I just couldn't help myself
This is a tough one, you do make a good point about the wording of the letter and legal ramifications.

Boing! Good thing for that ego of mine.

Just imagine the uproar if AP was found dead in an alley before LE located him.

Just imagine the uproar if one of her exes was beaten to an inch of his life shortly after the release of the letter.

Believe it or not, I'm actually saying LE can't be that daft as to haphazardly release information like this on a whim without being fairly confident it isn't going to come back to bite them.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

More interesting info.

https://m.facebook.com/camipatton.n...id=17&_ft_&cached_data=false&ftid=u_k_k&mdf=1

 

[debsy99]

I don't buy that she willingly left to avoid getting 50/50 custody. If she didn't want custody she wouldn't have altered her shift and she could have just not gone to court that day and worked her regular shift.

 

[kdgdid]

I also do not believe she left willingly

I don't buy that she willingly left to avoid getting 50/50 custody. If she didn't want custody she wouldn't have altered her shift and she could have just not gone to court that day and worked her regular shift.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I don't buy that she willingly left to avoid getting 50/50 custody. If she didn't want custody she wouldn't have altered her shift and she could have just not gone to court that day and worked her regular shift.

Would it be somehow more believable if it were the father backing out at the last minute?

 

[debsy99]

Would it be somehow more believable if it were the father backing out at the last minute?

That would be believable if he wasn't maintaining to police and all that he wanted her to have 50/50.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

That would be believable if he wasn't maintaining to police and all that he wanted her to have 50/50.

I meant a father with the same history. Three kids, no custody, raising none of them, living with a "roommate" suddenly thrust into court and now having to raise the child... if he fled the night before, would it be a big surprise, or would it be obvious he just took off because he didn't want to raise the child...

I'm not saying she left willingly, however I am shocked at how much information is flying from LE if they have indications of foul play. Usually, that means information lock down.

 

[debsy99]

I meant a father with the same history. Three kids, no custody, raising none of them, living with a "roommate" suddenly thrust into court and now having to raise the child... if he fled the night before, would it be a big surprise, or would it be obvious he just took off because he didn't want to raise the child...

I'm not saying she left willingly, however I am shocked at how much information is flying from LE if they have indications of foul play. Usually, that means information lock down.

Oh! Nah I don't discriminate. If the father was making the same type of preparations then vanished I would feel the same.

If there is CFS involvement it wouldn't happen in the blink of an eye. She wouldn't have been thrust into it. And again all she would have had to do is say no or not show and work her regular shift.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Oh! Nah I don't discriminate. If the father was making the same type of preparations then vanished I would feel the same.

If there is CFS involvement it wouldn't happen in the blink of an eye. She wouldn't have been thrust into it. And again all she would have had to do is say no or not show and work her regular shift.

Again... it depends on who's idea it was... hers, his or mutual. It is one thing to go along with the idea, but it is another story to take it on. It is also difficult to admit you don't want to be a parent to everyone you know. It would not be the first time a parent bailed on a custody hearing.

Also again... I'm not saying that is the case here...

I sure hope my picture isn't released to the public saying I have critical information in what LE believes is a potential homicide. I would be looking over my shoulder... and if anything happened to me, you bet my family would sue LE for negligently making me a target.

 

[deugirtni]

They (LE) had a report from a real person who was willing to identify himself, saying he knew someone who, one month prior to JRN's disappearance, said he fought off a girl's offender at which time he was threatened with a knife, and who also said he was hiding/protecting a girl. Identified guy wondered if it could be the same girl police are looking for, so he called in a tip giving his acquaintance's name.

Police look into the name, perhaps find that, 'hey, that's the same guy who found JRN's ID (whether one month before disappearance, or after she went missing)!' They try to reach the acquaintance by every means available to them (and I'm sure there are many), and are unsuccessful. He doesn't respond, whether by choice, or by not receiving LE's messages, who knows? Time is pressing on, it becomes apparent that acquaintance is simply choosing to ignore police requests for him to come forward, and so they release his photo, without his name attached, even though they know who he is, in order to protect his identity as much as possible under the circumstances. At the time, with the knowledge they had, the potential benefit to JRN and their case outweighed the potential risk to the man refusing to come forward. Said acquaintance then outs himself publicly, so now everyone knows his name. He finally speaks to police, police remove his photo.

Like you, I hope my photo isn't released to the public someday saying I may hold info critical to a MP case, but being innocent, you and I would have acquiesced to police by coming forward, wouldn't we? When they weren't hearing anything back from him, I'll bet police did eventually advise him that if he didn't come forward on his own, they would have no option but to release his photo with the goal of locating him. Police could undoubtedly determine that their messages were being seen by *someone*, and if by him, why not come forward, and if not by him, then they'd want his photo out there in case he was also in trouble, along with JRN, and could potentially have been seen by others.

It looks to me, that the photo part was a measure police had no choice but to resort to, given the circumstances, and that it was the person himself who brought about his own public exposure, in photo, in name, and in attitude. It seems that for some reason, he didn't feel he had to do what he was being asked to do. He was wrong. MOO

Again... it depends on who's idea it was... hers, his or mutual. It is one thing to go along with the idea, but it is another story to take it on. It is also difficult to admit you don't want to be a parent to everyone you know. It would not be the first time a parent bailed on a custody hearing.

Also again... I'm not saying that is the case here...

I sure hope my picture isn't released to the public saying I have critical information in what LE believes is a potential homicide. I would be looking over my shoulder... and if anything happened to me, you bet my family would sue LE for negligently making me a target.

 

[debsy99]

They (LE) had a report from a real person who was willing to identify himself, saying he knew someone who, one month prior to JRN's disappearance, said he fought off a girl's offender at which time he was threatened with a knife, and who also said he was hiding/protecting a girl. Identified guy wondered if it could be the same girl police are looking for, so he called in a tip giving his acquaintance's name.

Police look into the name, perhaps find that, 'hey, that's the same guy who found JRN's ID (whether one month before disappearance, or after she went missing)!' They try to reach the acquaintance by every means available to them (and I'm sure there are many), and are unsuccessful. He doesn't respond, whether by choice, or by not receiving LE's messages, who knows? Time is pressing on, it becomes apparent that acquaintance is simply choosing to ignore police requests for him to come forward, and so they release his photo, without his name attached, even though they know who he is, in order to protect his identity as much as possible under the circumstances. At the time, with the knowledge they had, the potential benefit to JRN and their case outweighed the potential risk to the man refusing to come forward. Said acquaintance then outs himself publicly, so now everyone knows his name. He finally speaks to police, police remove his photo.

Like you, I hope my photo isn't released to the public someday saying I may hold info critical to a MP case, but being innocent, you and I would have acquiesced to police by coming forward, wouldn't we? When they weren't hearing anything back from him, I'll bet police did eventually advise him that if he didn't come forward on his own, they would have no option but to release his photo with the goal of locating him. Police could undoubtedly determine that their messages were being seen by *someone*, and if by him, why not come forward, and if not by him, then they'd want his photo out there in case he was also in trouble, along with JRN, and could potentially have been seen by others.

It looks to me, that the photo part was a measure police had no choice but to resort to, given the circumstances, and that it was the person himself who brought about his own public exposure, in photo, in name, and in attitude. It seems that for some reason, he didn't feel he had to do what he was being asked to do. He was wrong. MOO

Also the police stated all along that he was not a suspect and not believed to be connected or responsible for her disappearance. And at the time of looking for him didn't once say there was potential for foul play. Days later they said it was possible because all signs of life stopped the day she disappeared.

 

[deugirtni]

Have we discussed yet the potential reasons why it took 3.5 days for JRN's missing person report to come out? She disappeared around 9;30pm on Tuesday, March 10th. Although it was fully expected by all that she would appear in court early on March 11th, and then again expected by all that she would pick up her son also on March 11th, I don't see any indications of her reported missing until March 14th. (CPS FB posting dated March 14; official 'Missing' FB page started March 18th; APR report dated March 14th) In the case of a MP, isn't time of the essence so that CCTV recordings can be obtained, info is fresh in peoples' minds, etc? If it was completely unusual, why wait that long to report?

 

[debsy99]

Have we discussed yet the potential reasons why it took 3.5 days for JRN's missing person report to come out? She disappeared around 9;30pm on Tuesday, March 10th. Although it was fully expected by all that she would appear in court early on March 11th, and then again expected by all that she would pick up her son also on March 11th, I don't see any indications of her reported missing until March 14th. (CPS FB posting dated March 14; official 'Missing' FB page started March 18th; APR report dated March 14th) In the case of a MP, isn't time of the essence so that CCTV recordings can be obtained, info is fresh in peoples' minds, etc? If it was completely unusual, why wait that long to report?

It depends usually unless it's someone with a medical condition or an older person gone missing generally suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's, or there is indication that something has seriously gone wrong, it takes a few days because the police use all their resources to locate a person before going public. The reason for that is CPS alone gets 20-30 missing person's reports a day. That would be a lot of missing then found posts.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Also the police stated all along that he was not a suspect and not believed to be connected or responsible for her disappearance. And at the time of looking for him didn't once say there was potential for foul play. Days later they said it was possible because all signs of life stopped the day she disappeared.

Yes... but my point was if LE thought there was any chance of foul play, like many people assume the letter proves, then it doesn't matter if they feel he has nothing to do with the disappearance, they put a target on a witness that can testify... and risk having that witness quieted permanently.

It is just one of many little things that hint at no foul play, and just play acting on everyone's part.

Deug had a good explanation above though... lots of practical sense.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Have we discussed yet the potential reasons why it took 3.5 days for JRN's missing person report to come out? She disappeared around 9;30pm on Tuesday, March 10th. Although it was fully expected by all that she would appear in court early on March 11th, and then again expected by all that she would pick up her son also on March 11th, I don't see any indications of her reported missing until March 14th. (CPS FB posting dated March 14; official 'Missing' FB page started March 18th; APR report dated March 14th) In the case of a MP, isn't time of the essence so that CCTV recordings can be obtained, info is fresh in peoples' minds, etc? If it was completely unusual, why wait that long to report?

We don't actually know when the report went to LE, or who made the call. The roommate said he felt something was wrong when he heard she didn't show up for her visitation, but how he heard about that, and when, is all unknown. The relationships between all the players are also a mystery.