GUILTY Canada - Jessica Newman, 24, Calgary, 10 March 2015 #2

[deugirtni]

What's the reason then for the Prosection to avoid any theory even remotely related to the child custody?

The way I see it, the Prosection is representing JRN - the victim - in their attempt to successful convict KR, who they believe committed the murder. The only evidence that will be introduced is that which aids in a conviction, in an attempt to prove KRs guilt.

Even if a victim, any victim, in any trial has character flaws or has made mistakes does not give anyone the right to murder. If that's at all relative in this particular case, then the Court is also charged with protecting JRN's reputation which is the way it should be.

JMO

How do you know the prosecution avoided any theory remotely related to the child custody issue? We have received hardly *any* reporting on this trial.

 

[MistyWaters]

What might've been JRN's intentions regarding KR we will never know. For a 24 year old, mother of three children but none currently living with her, her short life seemed well, in a constant state of transition - "complicated" is the best word I can think of. No doubt she had many influences, probably not all in the same direction.

But one possible clue that's somewhat revealing, evidence indicates she named her email acct "Tortured Love", which is an indication to the state of her inner emotions. "Tortured Love" as opposed to, say for example "Happy Gal" or "Loving Mom".

"......Monday was the start of what’s expected to be a three-week trial in the death of the young mom, with Rubletz charged with second-degree murder. In his opening address, Parker begins by noting Newman’s email account was named Tortured Love.

“Ironically, it foreshadowed her death,” says Parker of what he describes as a crime of passion..."
http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...-celebration-plans-before-disappearance-death

 

[MistyWaters]

How do you know the prosecution avoided any theory remotely related to the child custody issue? We have received hardly *any* reporting on this trial.

I think it was not because their case was presented in Parker's opening statement. Later the text message was entered into evidence indicating KR supported a 50/50 arrangement and in the 3688 text messages between the two, there were no indications of animosity in the otherwise "loving tone".

".........Newman and Rubletz had an on-again, off-again relationship and had a child together. At the time of her death, they were seeing other people but were exchanging messages of "romance, sex and love" between December 2014 and March 2015.

"This was a crime of passion," said Parker...."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-kevin-rubletz-murder-trial-1.4388587

I'm not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Are you?

 

[deugirtni]

"In his opening address to a Court of Queen’s Bench jury Monday, Crown prosecutor Shane Parker said Kevin Rubletz murdered Newman during a custody battle over their shared son.
Parker said the on-again, off-again couple were supposed to be in court on March 11, 2015, to argue access over the boy, who can’t be named."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/calgary-mom-jessica-newman-was-killed-in-crime-of-passion-jury-told

 

[deugirtni]

I think it was not because their case was presented in Parker's opening statement. Later the text message was entered into evidence indicating KR supported a 50/50 arrangement and in the 3688 text messages between the two, there were no indications of animosity in the otherwise "loving tone".

".........Newman and Rubletz had an on-again, off-again relationship and had a child together. At the time of her death, they were seeing other people but were exchanging messages of "romance, sex and love" between December 2014 and March 2015.

"This was a crime of passion," said Parker...."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-kevin-rubletz-murder-trial-1.4388587

I'm not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Are you?

The opening address of the Crown is like a summary of what the Crown proposes to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, during the trial. They can't just make stuff up for their opening and then just ignore it during the trial. KR's words saying that he supported JRN's application for '50/50' are just words of his own. I can't imagine that the Crown would not have entered evidence showing the couple's history in that regard, ie why didn't JRN have 50/50 to begin with, what steps had she taken to obtain it, who said she couldn't have it to begin with, did she even want it previously, who was involved in the decision-making as to when/if she would get it, what would that have meant for KR, etc. It is the Crown's job to prove their theory through the presentation of evidence, which would not preclude them from discussing what the deal was surrounding that whole issue, even if there was some unfortunate information in regard to JRN's past. I am appalled at the lack of reporting at this trial and I have no idea what has gone on, other than the tiny bit that has been reported on in MSM. But just because we don't hear about evidence presented, nor who all of the witnesses were who gave testimony, it doesn't mean there was nothing presented. Until I hear otherwise, I will hope the prosecution knows what they're doing and why they hold the theory they do, and are prepared to present it all to the jury. jmo.

 

[MistyWaters]

It seems that at this point in time, the van is the only evidence that circumstantially links KR to the murder. I've collected a few links below. Perhaps Sgt Arns is one of the final prosecution witnesses to be called to testify tomorrow.

".......A forensic police expert will testify that a "bloodletting event" took place in Rubletz' van and Newman's DNA was discovered on the front passenger seat. Parker told jurors the van shows evidence of a "botched cleanup."..."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-kevin-rubletz-murder-trial-1.4388587

"......On Wednesday morning, Det. Wayne Birks finished his testimony, which began the day before.

Birks was also involved in the investigation when Newman was still considered a missing person. He interviewed Rubletz several times.

At the time, Newman was still considered a missing person, and Birks said he did not have the authority to seize the van.

In cross-examination, Miller pointed out that Rubletz allowed Birks to look inside his van and that the officer did not see any blood or staining.

The Crown has already indicated that forensic testing showed a "bloodletting" event took place in the vehicle and that Newman's DNA was found inside..."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-murder-trial-kevin-rubletz-day-7-1.4404129

"....Rubletz later that day went to Lambert’s home to return some materials he had stored in the back of his mother’s van, which the accused was using during that time period...."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...ictim-was-feeding-false-information-to-police

".....According to the prosecution's theory, Newman's death was a "crime of passion" that took place the night of March 10, 2015. Prosecutors Shane Parker and Tom Spark say evidence will show Rubletz killed Newman in his van and then dumped her body north of Calgary.

After Newman's body was discovered in May 2015 in a ditch near Balzac, Rubletz's grandmother, mother and stepfather took the van to a scrap yard, but police were able to intercept it and run tests, jurors have heard.

The van driven by Kevin Rubletz was found at a pick-and-pull lot after Jessica Newman's body was discovered two months after she disappeared. (Court exhibit )
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...letz-murder-trial-police-interviews-1.4402009

Note the difference in reporting context, above and below. A pick and pull lot at an auto wreckers, where parts are sold and stripped directly from old vehicles, is very common but the Sun makes it appear the deliberate destruction of evidence was the intent.

".......The day after Newman’s body was found, relatives of the accused took his van to a wrecking yard.

But before the vehicle was crushed, officers were able to seize and inspect it..."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...wman-was-killed-in-crime-of-passion-jury-told

".....Adeagbo agreed with Miller that Newman was stabbed on multiple parts of her body “but mostly on her left side.”

He agreed with Parker the dozens of wounds could have been inflicted with Newman for the most part being seated in a bucket seat of a vehicle with her killer attacking from the right side."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/homicide-victim-jessica-newman-stabbed-four-times-in-the-heart

".......Among the witnesses jurors will hear from, Parker said, is bloodstain pattern analyst Sgt. Jodi Arns.

“She believes inside the van there was a blood-letting,” the prosecutor said.

Newman’s DNA was found in the vehicle, including on the underside of the fabric of the passenger side seat, which had been gouged.

“This the Crown will argue, is circumstantial evidence inferring a botched cleanup,” he said....."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...wman-was-killed-in-crime-of-passion-jury-told

*****
I wonder how it would ever be possible to clean up the inside of a van where a murder had occurred involving 75 stab wounds so well that the initial officer investigating her disappearance wouldn't have noticed? How would one clean the inside of a seat, if it were gouged during a stabbing? As for JRNs DNA in the van, that's certainly not unusual considering all. Is this evidence that will convict, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[MistyWaters]

The opening address of the Crown is like a summary of what the Crown proposes to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, during the trial. They can't just make stuff up for their opening and then just ignore it during the trial. KR's words saying that he supported JRN's application for '50/50' are just words of his own. I can't imagine that the Crown would not have entered evidence showing the couple's history in that regard, ie why didn't JRN have 50/50 to begin with, what steps had she taken to obtain it, who said she couldn't have it to begin with, did she even want it previously, who was involved in the decision-making as to when/if she would get it, what would that have meant for KR, etc. It is the Crown's job to prove their theory through the presentation of evidence, which would not preclude them from discussing what the deal was surrounding that whole issue, even if there was some unfortunate information in regard to JRN's past. I am appalled at the lack of reporting at this trial and I have no idea what has gone on, other than the tiny bit that has been reported on in MSM. But just because we don't hear about evidence presented, nor who all of the witnesses were who gave testimony, it doesn't mean there was nothing presented. Until I hear otherwise, I will hope the prosecution knows what they're doing and why they hold the theory they do, and are prepared to present it all to the jury. jmo.

If discussing the history of the child's custody isn't beneficial in supporting a motive for murder for the prosecution, what would be the point of offering it into evidence? Evidence of what? Evidence to disprove an internet theory just isn't enough.

The child is still alive and oh my gosh but I feel for any children who, through no fault of their own, can sometimes become the centre and even the cause of parental murder trials. If the child's custody wasn't an issue between his parents, then he has the right to not have confidential court files pertaining to him made public. He's a victim too - his mother was murdered.

 

[otto]

What's the reason then for the Prosection to avoid any theory even remotely related to the child custody?

The way I see it, the Prosection is representing JRN - the victim - in their attempt to successful convict KR, who they believe committed the murder. The only evidence that will be introduced is that which aids in a conviction, in an attempt to prove KRs guilt.

Even if a victim, any victim, in any trial has character flaws or has made mistakes does not give anyone the right to murder. If that's at all relative in this particular case, then the Court is also charged with protecting JRN's reputation which is the way it should be.

JMO

I believe this was premeditated first degree murder, but the prosecutor has charged with second degree murder and has described this as a crime of passion. That means that the prosecutor has, to some degree, excused Kevin from full conscious responsibility for the murder of Jessica. Second degree murder convictions typically receive a ten year sentence, but with time served that will be reduced to something like six or seven years. Kevin will be out of prison before his son completes elementary school. He can use his time in prison to complete any education or training he wants on the taxpayers dime, and then apprentice for whatever trade he can accomplish in prison. Jessica's sentence is forever, no chance to ever see her sons again.

I think the prosecutor should have stepped up, taken the high road, and at the very least tried to argue a case of first degree murder. I think all the pieces are in place to argue a case of premeditated murder based on the acrimonious custody dispute, the timing in relation to the court hearing, and Kevin's desire to not only avoid sharing his income, but to have the freedom to choose who looked after his son while he chose to live outside of Calgary. I think his family should have been charged with trying to destroy evidence, and lying during a police investigation.

I think the prosecutor's office is overworked, so rather than seek full justice for a victim of all too common spousal homicide, he is satisfied with the lower charge, the lower conviction, and less effort from his office. This in no way puts the victim on trial. It puts a lying, murderous criminal on trial for a murder that is usually prosecuted as second degree in Canada, but first degree in the USA.

For example, Brad Cooper, of Southern Alberta, murdered his Edmonton born wife Nancy in North Carolina. They had a custody dispute, he was angry about money and time with his daughters. They were at a party together, he went home early with the children, she returned home later. He murdered her that night and dumped her body in a ditch. No one questioned whether it was premeditated murder because all the pieces were in place regarding anger over custody and finances - exactly the same as what we have here.

 

[otto]

If discussing the history of the child's custody isn't beneficial in supporting a motive for murder for the prosecution, what would be the point of offering it into evidence? Evidence of what? Evidence to disprove an internet theory just isn't enough.

The child is still alive and oh my gosh but I feel for any children who, through no fault of their own, can sometimes become the centre and even the cause of parental murder trials. If the child's custody wasn't an issue between his parents, then he has the right to not have confidential court files pertaining to him made public. He's a victim too - his mother was murdered.

The prosecutor has to present evidence to prove that the suspect committed the murder. He doesn't have to air the couple's dirty laundry to do that. He has only to demonstrate that there was a custody dispute, that it was acrimonious, and that the suspect perceived the loss of full control over the child as a financial imposition and threat to his personal freedom. Although she told people that he had agreed to equal shared custody, if he was genuine in that offer she would still be alive.

Actually ... maybe I should cut the prosecutor some slack here. Perhaps that's the hurdle that he can't overcome in the premeditated argument - that she told people that the suspect agree to equal shared custody, which negates the argument that he murdered her because he didn't want to share custody. Maybe that's why her family has said that they'd never heard that he agree to share custody, maybe that's muddies the water for premeditation. Perhaps I need to think through this some more.

Did Jessica or Kevin put it in writing anywhere, while Jessica was alive, that he agreed to equal shared custody, or is that just something some people said after she was murdered. I think I read that her family didn't know anything about that agreement. Was that something he said to her shortly before her murder, perhaps a ploy to get her to drop her guard and trust him?

 

[MistyWaters]

I believe this was premeditated first degree murder, but the prosecutor has charged with second degree murder and has described this as a crime of passion. That means that the prosecutor has, to some degree, excused Kevin from full conscious responsibility for the murder of Jessica. Second degree murder convictions typically receive a ten year sentence, but with time served that will be reduced to something like six or seven years. Kevin will be out of prison before his son completes elementary school. He can use his time in prison to complete any education or training he wants on the taxpayers dime, and then apprentice for whatever trade he can accomplish in prison. Jessica's sentence is forever, no chance to ever see her sons again.

I think the prosecutor should have stepped up, taken the high road, and at the very least tried to argue a case of first degree murder. I think all the pieces are in place to argue a case of premeditated murder based on the acrimonious custody dispute, the timing in relation to the court hearing, and Kevin's desire to not only avoid sharing his income, but to have the freedom to choose who looked after his son while he chose to live outside of Calgary. I think his family should have been charged with trying to destroy evidence, and lying during a police investigation.

I think the prosecutor's office is overworked, so rather than seek full justice for a victim of all too common spousal homicide, he is satisfied with the lower charge, the lower conviction, and less effort from his office. This in no way puts the victim on trial. It puts a lying, murderous criminal on trial for a murder that is usually prosecuted as second degree in Canada, but first degree in the USA.

For example, Brad Cooper, of Southern Alberta, murdered his Edmonton born wife Nancy in North Carolina. They had a custody dispute, he was angry about money and time with his daughters. They were at a party together, he went home early with the children, she returned home later. He murdered her that night and dumped her body in a ditch. No one questioned whether it was premeditated murder because all the pieces were in place regarding anger over custody and finances - exactly the same as what we have here.

Brad Cooper's case is the United States is not a good comparison as there was a lot of evidence of marital discord between the two. Aside from the fact LE claimed to have accidentally wiped his cellphone after he turned it over to them, the 1st degree murder conviction was also later tossed on appeal. Brad plead guilty to 2nd degree and and by doing so accepted a relatively short term considering the generally harsh penalties of American sentencing.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...lty-to-second-degree-murder-of-wife-1.2773992

 

[MistyWaters]

The prosecutor has to present evidence to prove that the suspect committed the murder. He doesn't have to air the couple's dirty laundry to do that. He has only to demonstrate that there was a custody dispute, that it was acrimonious, and that the suspect perceived the loss of full control over the child as a financial imposition and threat to his personal freedom. Although she told people that he had agreed to equal shared custody, if he was genuine in that offer she would still be alive.

Actually ... maybe I should cut the prosecutor some slack here. Perhaps that's the hurdle that he can't overcome in the premeditated argument - that she told people that the suspect agree to equal shared custody, which negates the argument that he murdered her because he didn't want to share custody. Maybe that's why her family has said that they'd never heard that he agree to share custody, maybe that's muddies the water for premeditation. Perhaps I need to think through this some more.

Did Jessica or Kevin put it in writing anywhere, while Jessica was alive, that he agreed to equal shared custody, or is that just something some people said after she was murdered. I think I read that her family didn't know anything about that agreement. Was that something he said to her shortly before her murder, perhaps a ploy to get her to drop her guard and trust him?

The theory that JRN was murdered by KR is also based on the assumption that she would've been granted 50/50 joint custody only by agreement between the two. But we don't know that either. We don't know why the hearing was required or if Child Protective Services was involved. It's also never been mentioned by friends or relatives what child care arrangements were planned by JRN if 50/50 had been granted by the Court and that surely would've been information required at the hearing. If the little we do know, the middle aged male "roommate" situation is a totally unsatisfactory living arrangement that I'd never want to place any child in but that's just my opinion.

If the Prosecution had chose to go down the road of intent to murder over the looming custody battle, it would open the door to the reason why none of the children were living with her at the time. If the other two children were by the same father, was she also granted sole custody and child support accordingly and if so then why were they under the care of her parents?

While it may be that the Prosecution is just taking the easy route, it's also equally possible that they fought to keep that door shut on the entire issue of child custody during a voir dire hearing in order to protect the character of the victim. If so, that was the right thing to do.

 

[otto]

Brad Cooper's case is the United States is not a good comparison as there was a lot of evidence of marital discord between the two. Aside from the fact LE claimed to have accidentally wiped his cellphone after he turned it over to them, the 1st degree murder conviction was also later tossed on appeal. Brad plead guilty to 2nd degree and and by doing so accepted a relatively short term considering the generally harsh penalties of American sentencing.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...lty-to-second-degree-murder-of-wife-1.2773992

I disagree. In NC, prosecutors can spend the first two or more weeks of a trial with a train of witnesses whose only role is to damage the character of the accused. That's not allowed in Canada, however that doesn't mean that the relationship between Kevin and Jessica was in good shape. In reality, Brad and Nancy were a normal couple with loads of money, great job, lots of friends, lots of partying, both sleeping around, and both bored with having it all. They both used their intellect to sling insults at each other. Nancy was very vocal about her problems, such as only having 1200 US dollars pocket money per month, and used every opportunity to badmouth Brad to their friends. 1200 US dollars monthly pocket money is a nice first world problem to have, yet one that was placed in the context of illustrating that Nancy was an abused woman. Nancy was a regular middle class average woman who could have been a little more thankful for what she had, yet she put herself on a pedestal as deserving of so much more. For example, didn't she make a play for Brett Wilson when he was married, and didn't his marriage break up at the same time? We heard one story about Nancy, but what's the other half of the story?

Regardless, the only real problem I see that led to murder was that Nancy wanted the children and the money, and Brad didn't agree. That's the same situation we have here. With Kevin and Jessica, there is less affluence, lower education, some partying, and the same old spousal disagreement of money and child. I suspect that if Canadian courts allowed witnesses to damage the character of the suspect prior to hearing evidence, prosecutors could have found just as many witnesses to badmouth Kevin as they did with Brad. Kevin murdered Jessica on the night she expected to have some rights restored, so there's no doubt that he is not a good man, did not respect her, and did not treat her well. Did she flirt, probably, but so did Nancy. Did she party, probably, but so did Nancy. Did that upset the fathers of their children, probably.

 

[otto]

The theory that JRN was murdered by KR is also based on the assumption that she would've been granted 50/50 joint custody only by agreement between the two. But we don't know that either. We don't know why the hearing was required or if Child Protective Services was involved. It's also never been mentioned by friends or relatives what child care arrangements were planned by JRN if 50/50 had been granted by the Court and that surely would've been information required at the hearing. If the little we do know, the middle aged male "roommate" situation is a totally unsatisfactory living arrangement that I'd never want to place any child in but that's just my opinion.

If the Prosecution had chose to go down the road of intent to murder over the looming custody battle, it would open the door to the reason why none of the children were living with her at the time. If the other two children were by the same father, was she also granted sole custody and child support accordingly and if so then why were they under the care of her parents?

While it may be that the Prosecution is just taking the easy route, it's also equally possible that they fought to keep that door shut on the entire issue of child custody during a voir dire hearing in order to protect the character of the victim. If so, that was the right thing to do.

I don't know that the courts would have decided that Kevin should retain day to day care of the child if he was leaving the city. His circumstances were changing and he wanted to leave his son with his sister while he was away. I think the courts would have decided that the child was better off with at least one parent rather than a relative.

We know nothing about Jessica's roommates other than the fact that they looked after her enough to drive her to work. That doesn't sound like a bad thing. There has been no information about child services in relation to her child, so there's no reason to assume anything. We don't know anything about her other children, and cannot make assumptions. It could be something as simple as the father is able to provide for the children, and she wasn't ready to settle down and be a wife and mom.

Jessica's parenting history has nothing to do with her murder, so there's no reason to introduce that information in court. However, that doesn't mean that the custody dispute with the suspect is unrelated to her murder.

 

[MistyWaters]

I don't know that the courts would have decided that Kevin should retain day to day care of the child if he was leaving the city. His circumstances were changing and he wanted to leave his son with his sister while he was away. I think the courts would have decided that the child was better off with at least one parent rather than a relative.

We know nothing about Jessica's roommates other than the fact that they looked after her enough to drive her to work. That doesn't sound like a bad thing. There has been no information about child services in relation to her child, so there's no reason to assume anything. We don't know anything about her other children, and cannot make assumptions. It could be something as simple as the father is able to provide for the children, and she wasn't ready to settle down and be a wife and mom.

Jessica's parenting history has nothing to do with her murder, so there's no reason to introduce that information in court. However, that doesn't mean that the custody dispute with the suspect is unrelated to her murder.

There was only one roommate ever mentioned - MH. Absolutely nothing whatsoever is known about him. However I'm very curious about a media publicized incident that occured appx a year later involving a middle aged man of the same name but there's not enough information nor public records to establish any actual connection one way or another.

On the topic of Domestic Violence in Canada
Domestic Violence
Courts will often admit evidence of prior disrepute in order to assist a trier-of-fact in understanding the "nature of the relationship in which the violence is said to have occurred".[1]

The conduct will have significant probative value where the relationship demonstrates the accused "historically acted with animus towards the Complainant" in sufficiently similar circumstances.[2]

In offences of domestic violence, it is important for the alleged victim to provide context in order to avoid having her discredited unfairly. Past acts that reveal ill-will and animus towards the alleged victim is acceptable.[3] It must be necessary to set out the true nature of the relationship between the parties, particularly with a view to evidence that shows "dominance, control, possessiveness and fear".[4]

Often this evidence is admitted as "narrative".[5]

However, it can be rejected for its danger of being "propensity" evidence.[6]

In a domestic homicide, the crown may introduce evidence of the past relationship between the victim and accused for the purpose of establishing motive, animus and state of mind . [7]
http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Character_of_Accused&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile

BBM And I see that's exactly what occured in this trial. If there's no evidence of animosity between the two because all is to the contrary, what remains is a "crime of passion".

 

[MistyWaters]

I don't know that the courts would have decided that Kevin should retain day to day care of the child if he was leaving the city. His circumstances were changing and he wanted to leave his son with his sister while he was away. I think the courts would have decided that the child was better off with at least one parent rather than a relative.

We know nothing about Jessica's roommates other than the fact that they looked after her enough to drive her to work. That doesn't sound like a bad thing. There has been no information about child services in relation to her child, so there's no reason to assume anything. We don't know anything about her other children, and cannot make assumptions. It could be something as simple as the father is able to provide for the children, and she wasn't ready to settle down and be a wife and mom.

Jessica's parenting history has nothing to do with her murder, so there's no reason to introduce that information in court. However, that doesn't mean that the custody dispute with the suspect is unrelated to her murder.

Unless you've changed your theory that KR premeditated the murder of JRN to avoid paying child support, her parenting history had everything to do with the murder because the anticipated outcome of the family court hearing as understood by KR would become an important defense factor. If either of the two were in a serious "custody battle" they'd surely have sought legal advice from attorneys who would've advised each of them. No indication that ever occurred either.

Because we have no facts, assumptive speculation can go the other way as well -- KR knew the likelihood of 50/50 was low but he was only going along with it, playing the good guy routine to keep their relationship intact, expecting the judge to take the blame. JRNs text to KR confirming 50/50 indicates to me that she was totally unfamiliar with family court procedures. For example, why she'd think it was important for KR to agree is totally baffling. I think you are reading much more into the dynamics between the two than what was ever there.

 

[otto]

Unless you've changed your theory that KR premeditated the murder of JRN to avoid paying child support, her parenting history had everything to do with the murder because the anticipated outcome of the family court hearing as understood by KR would become an important defense factor. If either of the two were in a serious "custody battle" they'd surely have sought legal advice from attorneys who would've advised each of them. No indication that ever occurred either.

Because we have no facts, assumptive speculation can go the other way as well -- KR knew the likelihood of 50/50 was low but he was only going along with it, playing the good guy routine to keep their relationship intact, expecting the judge to take the blame. JRNs text to KR confirming 50/50 indicates to me that she was totally unfamiliar with family court procedures. For example, why she'd think it was important for KR to agree is totally baffling. I think you are reading much more into the dynamics between the two than what was ever there.

Absolutely not. Her history of a parent has nothing to do with her ability to parent the child in question. The only thing that matters in determining custody of the child is whether Jessica and Kevin could provide a stable and suitable environment for their child. It's absolutely not true that if a father does not have custody of children from a first family, he is deemed unsuitable to have custody of children from a second family. It does not work like that.

Kevin was not going along with equal shared custody. He murdered Jessica rather than risk the very real possibility that she would have equal daily care of their son. Do not under estimate how the courts would view a father who wanted custody of a child, but who put his personal interests ahead of providing a home for that child. Ditching his son with his sister so he could apprentice in another city is not good enough. He would have lost complete control of their child if he was unable to provide a home and day to day care. That's why he murdered her - to prevent her from receiving equal care of their child, which was a very real possibility.

 

[MistyWaters]

Latest - although nothing is reported to indicate what Sgt Arns actually discovered.

"....Crown prosecutor Shane Parker asked her if she came to any conclusion based on what she discovered in the vehicle.

“It’s my opinion that Ms. Newman incurred a blood-letting incident and she definitely would’ve been in the van at the time,” Arns told a five-man, six-woman Court of Queen’s Bench jury.....

......Under cross-examination, Arns told defence counsel Brendan Miller she wasn’t able to determine where Newman was actually killed.

“I can’t tell you she was killed within the van,” she said.

Miller also asked about whether Arns found blood on the top of Newman’s shoes, which might indicate she was seated in the van, which is the Crown’s theory.

“Nothing was found on the top of the shoes?” Miller said.

“No, there was not,” Arns said...."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/fatal-stabbing-victim-jessica-newman-bled-in-suspects-van

 

[MistyWaters]

Absolutely not. Her history of a parent has nothing to do with her ability to parent the child in question. The only thing that matters in determining custody of the child is whether Jessica and Kevin could provide a stable and suitable environment for their child. It's absolutely not true that if a father does not have custody of children from a first family, he is deemed unsuitable to have custody of children from a second family. It does not work like that.

Kevin was not going along with equal shared custody. He murdered Jessica rather than risk the very real possibility that she would have equal daily care of their son. Do not under estimate how the courts would view a father who wanted custody of a child, but who put his personal interests ahead of providing a home for that child. Ditching his son with his sister so he could apprentice in another city is not good enough. He would have lost complete control of their child if he was unable to provide a home and day to day care. That's why he murdered her - to prevent her from receiving equal care of their child, which was a very real possibility.

“The best interests of the child”: A guiding principle of Canadian family law
https://www.familylawhelp.ca/the-best-interests-of-the-child/

 

[MistyWaters]

"Parker and co-prosecutor Tom Spark closed their case Monday.

Jurors were told the defence will be calling evidence."
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-van/wcm/466653b1-0c75-4f86-9657-c7da6dabb058

Just my opinion but either KR was actively inviting his arrest and conviction considering he told LE he drove to Balzac that night and JRN's mother allegedly also told LE he'd been driving the back roads around Cross Iron Mall just to the east. He had a two month window of opportunity to relocate the body somewhere where she'd never to be found and destroy the van.

Or someone set him up and he's innocent. JMO

 

[otto]

“The best interests of the child”: A guiding principle of Canadian family law
https://www.familylawhelp.ca/the-best-interests-of-the-child/

The best interests of the child within the context of that child's circumstances are all that are considered. It has nothing to do with the best interests of children in another set of circumstances.