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

[LoisLane]

Just catching up on posts and wanted to throw a few ideas out...

- Kevin could have had a work schedule that allowed him to be away two weeks at a time. So the agreement could have been that the two weeks he is away the child is in Jessica's care.

- I assume Kevin wanted and needed to pursue work for financial reasons by working away from the city where the jobs were better paid but required living away. He may have secured a living arrangement with his sister for when he was in town and couldn't afford or see the value in renting a home that he would occupy two weeks of the month.

- Misty had mentioned about Jessica having someone influence her that 50/50 was beneficial for her for various reasons and who may not have known of the couples continuing romance. I agree with this 100%. JN was also in a relationship with someone besides KCR too. As for the friend and who that could be whether a family member or long distance friend - I am going to suggest it was the earlier witness who testified... TS, who has also been referenced as some type of social worker. She testified that her and JN were planning to celebrate her getting custody. I find that unprofessional. But also interesting to note this same person now has custody or full time responsibility over Jessica's child.

- as for the van... the first officer who was given permission to see the inside did not notice any blood... I have a real hard time accepting that 75 stab wounds was so easy to clean and not obvious. Unless by chance Jessica's leathers coat somehow protected the seat. Where is that coat anyways? But if the grandmother and mom and KCR had to take the vehicle to the junk yard I could assume the vehicle had broken down beyond repair. Wouldn't Kevin have been told not to sell the vehicle just like he would be told not to leave the country? If he asked police permission to rid the van and police approved but then intercepted could that be problematic or a set-up of sorts in accessing evidence?
- I can't decide if it is lack of reporting or lack of evidence that is keeping me from fully understanding KCR's guilt.

 

[MistyWaters]

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.

And given child custody isn't at the centre of this trial, we will never know the circumstances. There's no value in making this case into something that it's not.

 

[MistyWaters]

A question - early on in this case I recall it stated by LE that JRN was last sighted at 9:30pm when she was dropped off at her home and then something about her not actually entering the residence. Is that correct? If so, do we know, was KR the original source of that information or did LE say? Unfortunately many of the older media reports appear to have been overwritten.

 

[LoisLane]

A question - early on in this case I recall it stated by LE that JRN was last sighted at 9:30pm when she was dropped off at her home and then something about her not actually entering the residence. Is that correct? If so, do we know, was KR the original source of that information or did LE say? Unfortunately many of the older media reports appear to have been overwritten.

That was stated. I believe it was MH who said it. He also testified that the dog
didn't make any sound so he knew she didn't come in. I thought at one point he claimed to be asleep...

MH had a son also residing in the home. I believe he was home home that night too. I often thought he may have offered JN a ride that night after she got home. Or he was outside and they shared a smoke or something.

 

[deugirtni]

I noticed that sometime between the beginning of the trial on November 6th, and just over one week later, on November 15th, the jury reduced from 12 to 11. No mention made of this in any news reports that I have seen (I think one was excused in another trial I've been following, but not this one?) Normally this would be reported on.

 

[MistyWaters]

I noticed that sometime between the beginning of the trial on November 6th, and just over one week later, on November 15th, the jury reduced from 12 to 11. No mention made of this in any news reports that I have seen (I think one was excused in another trial I've been following, but not this one?) Normally this would be reported on.

Maybe it's a matter of different expectations? Having lived in this province for decades, I'd say the level of coverage of this trial isn't that unusual.

The recent exception to the norm was the live tweeting of Garland trial. However aside from that, the online media reports were also very much summarized.

Also to consider, just putting on a hat of the average person who's not overly interested in criminal cases being extensively reported......it seems Calgary and area has more than its share of homicides and other deaths resulting in criminal charges in the recent past. I wonder if this one isn't being extensively covered as much as we might expect due to local media intent to balance news reporting by not overly focusing on sad, negative or tragic events?

Why I think maybe so is because the current state of the economy here is not overly positive. Various reasons, but mostly connected to oil companies who have and are severely reducing employment opportunities, which is causing a ripple effect. Unemployment in Calgary remains amongst the highest in the country at 8.3% and the downtown office vacancy rate had went from virtually nothing when oil was at its peak to presently above 25%. Housing prices have fallen, sales are slow, many people struggle with their finances. While I don't have stats at hand, during times like this personal stress is often heightened which causes domestic incidents in general to increase.

So I'm just guessing at what might be an explanation by offering some context. And just so say, I really do appreciate when our local media does offer up a good news story from time to time because gosh knows, it must be hard to find.

 

[deugirtni]

In the news report at the end of the trial day November 15th, Megan Grant reported that the Crown had 4 more witnesses to call, and that the ME and the lead detective would be testifying the following day (Nov 16th).

On Nov 16th the only news report I can see is one by Kevin Martin wherein he only mentions the testimony from the ME. Did the lead detective not get called? Or did his testimony not bother to be reported upon?

Then on Nov 16th it was announced that the trial was adjourned until Nov 20th, at which time the Crown would be resting their case.

Jodi Arns testified on Nov 20th. Still no mention of the lead detective having been on the stand, and since Nov 15th, all that has been reported on was testimony from 2 witnesses, (ME and Arns), not the 4 that were stated on Nov 15th to still be presented. It seems that we're missing 2 witnesses, just from the final 2 days of the Crown's case. How many other witnesses were not reported on?

I wonder if there will be any reports on what the jury wasn't allowed to hear, once the jury is sequestered. Terrible terrible coverage on this trial!

"The trial is winding down. Prosecutors Shane Parker and Tom Spark have four witnesses left.
Jurors will hear from the lead homicide detective and the medical examiner on Thursday."
By Meghan Grant, CBC News Posted: Nov 15, 2017 4:44 PM MT Last Updated: Nov 15, 2017 4:44 PM MT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-murder-trial-kevin-rubletz-day-7-1.4404129

 

[deugirtni]

A question - early on in this case I recall it stated by LE that JRN was last sighted at 9:30pm when she was dropped off at her home and then something about her not actually entering the residence. Is that correct? If so, do we know, was KR the original source of that information or did LE say? Unfortunately many of the older media reports appear to have been overwritten.

There was no evidence of JRN having been dropped off at home other than the accused saying he dropped her off there at 9:30pm. Other reports said she was last seen waiting for her ride after her shift at work at 9pm (her boss - not sure if there were also others?); her landlord said JRN had not come home, and that the last he heard from her was when he dropped her off *at* work for 4pm. According to testimony, JRN's final outbound text was at 8:40pm. LE has not found any indication that she was alive after being with KR that evening. Two 2 files on her computer had been accessed 3 days after she 'disappeared' (which was the same day her landlord called her family and he subsequently reported her missing after speaking to them, so presumably he was looking for contact info? - but this was not reported on).

 

[MistyWaters]

In the news report at the end of the trial day November 15th, Megan Grant reported that the Crown had 4 more witnesses to call, and that the ME and the lead detective would be testifying the following day (Nov 16th).

On Nov 16th the only news report I can see is one by Kevin Martin wherein he only mentions the testimony from the ME. Did the lead detective not get called? Or did his testimony not bother to be reported upon?

Then on Nov 16th it was announced that the trial was adjourned until Nov 20th, at which time the Crown would be resting their case.

Jodi Arns testified on Nov 20th. Still no mention of the lead detective having been on the stand, and since Nov 15th, all that has been reported on was testimony from 2 witnesses, (ME and Arns), not the 4 that were stated on Nov 15th to still be presented. It seems that we're missing 2 witnesses, just from the final 2 days of the Crown's case. How many other witnesses were not reported on?

I wonder if there will be any reports on what the jury wasn't allowed to hear, once the jury is sequestered. Terrible terrible coverage on this trial!

"The trial is winding down. Prosecutors Shane Parker and Tom Spark have four witnesses left.
Jurors will hear from the lead homicide detective and the medical examiner on Thursday."
By Meghan Grant, CBC News Posted: Nov 15, 2017 4:44 PM MT Last Updated: Nov 15, 2017 4:44 PM MT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-murder-trial-kevin-rubletz-day-7-1.4404129

Only my opinion but given the summary version of this trial's reporting that we're seeing, no one trial reporter is present throughout the hours of each day of testimony. Instead they attend only during key witness testimony, knowing what to expect based on Opening Statements. As the Prosecution appears to be introducing evidence following a general time sequence of events, I'd guess the missing witnesses testimony is related to the discovery of the body, prior to the medical examiner's autopsy and seisure and forensic analysis of KRs van. Any testimony about that is notably missing.

If my theory is correct, reporting of defence witness testimony may increase because it's not known what's expected.

One thing I'm curious about - did an air search ever take place in the area of Balzac or Cross Iron Mall and if not, why not considering KR was a POI and early in the missing persons investigation admitted to driving around there.

 

[MistyWaters]

One day of defense efforts to attempt to create reasonable doubt. A sighting, keys mysteriously appearing and I had a feeling the defence was going to throw somebody under the bus but amongst several options, I wouldn't have guessed it to be KR's mother --

"......Defence counsel Brendan Miller, in his opening address to a Court of Queen’s Bench jury, said Cheryl Rubletz Williams had a dislike for fatal stabbing victim Jessica Newman.

“Cheryl Williams had an animus toward the deceased,” Miller told the five men and six women who hold his client’s future in their hands.

“Cheryl had issues with Jessica’s parenting and her drinking,” Miller said.

The lawyer suggested Rubletz’s mother didn’t like the fact her son was willing to give Newman 50/50 custody of the young child they shared....."
and more:
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...ill-alive-after-client-accused-of-killing-her

"Jurors will hear final submissions from Crown and defence lawyers on Wednesday."

 

[LoisLane]

One day of defense efforts to attempt to create reasonable doubt. A sighting, keys mysteriously appearing and I had a feeling the defence was going to throw somebody under the bus but amongst several options, I wouldn't have guessed it to be KR's mother --

"......Defence counsel Brendan Miller, in his opening address to a Court of Queen’s Bench jury, said Cheryl Rubletz Williams had a dislike for fatal stabbing victim Jessica Newman.

“Cheryl Williams had an animus toward the deceased,” Miller told the five men and six women who hold his client’s future in their hands.

“Cheryl had issues with Jessica’s parenting and her drinking,” Miller said.

The lawyer suggested Rubletz’s mother didn’t like the fact her son was willing to give Newman 50/50 custody of the young child they shared....."
and more:
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...ill-alive-after-client-accused-of-killing-her

"Jurors will hear final submissions from Crown and defence lawyers on Wednesday."

Also from the article:
"Miller also pointed out that Newman’s keys to the residence where she was staying mysteriously appeared more than six days after she was allegedly murdered.

On March 16, after the mother-of-three was reported missing, police took a video of her basement bedroom, including showing a chair with prongs sticking up on its back.

The video clearly shows that Newman’s keys were not present, but police found them on one of the prongs three days later."

 

[MistyWaters]

And more, this time from CBC (perhaps the various reporters each worked shifts in the courtroom throughout the day..)

"......It wasn't Kevin Rubletz who killed his former girlfriend Jessica Newman by stabbing her 75 times. It was his mother and stepfather, Calgary defence lawyer Brendan Miller told jurors on Tuesday..........

............Jessica Newman was last seen in March 2015. It would be two months before her body was found in a rural ditch near Balzac wearing a sweatshirt belonging to Rubletz's mother.......

......On March 10, 2015, Rubletz picked up Newman from work and the two had coffee while reviewing her Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) papers ahead of a family court hearing the next day when the 24-year-old mother was planning to apply for 50 per cent custody of their son.

Those AA papers were found in Newman's room by police days later, which defence suggests shows she returned home after being dropped off by Rubletz..".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rial-kevin-rubletz-defence-evidence-1.4413155

 

[LoisLane]

I wonder if the sweatshirt is also the same as the one Jessica wore in the pic that was circulated during her disappearance. I think it was a blue hoody. Kevin's Mom could have given it to her prior.

 

[deugirtni]

More crappy reporting (sorry, my opinion only, wish it weren't so!). So the defence presents its case - comprised of: i)the lawyer for the accused suggests another possibility for 'whodunit', by simply saying so with his own words; and ii)the produce a witness who 'believes' he saw JRN, and thinks it was the night after she disappeared, based on having checked his work records. Is that it??

If the defence was serious in its allegations, why not do a real defence, by proving through evidence that what they were saying was true? ie was the videotape that 'clearly showed' the housekeys NOT present, shown to the jury? Or was it just stated by the lawyer? Normally during a trial if a video is presented in evidence, it is presented by a duly qualified person who is introduced to the court - unless that same video showing this, had already been presented by a Crown witness, and replayed by the defence? (But again, we don't know what goes on in court with the lacking reporting!).

It is pretty simple for legal counsel to say 'whatever' during the defence, without it being backed up with *evidence*. So let's say the jury accepts this meager offering as 'reasonable doubt' - what happens next? Police do a whole new investigation into KR's mother, and what if they then find that oh look, that video showed the wrong chair, it was actually *that* chair that had the keys.. or they find KR's mother happens to have an ironclad alibi.. or the fellow who believes he saw JRN, discovers his employer's work records were in error? Then what? Can't go back to court with KR again.

I wonder what the defence proposes is the explanation for how KR's mom got her hands on the van sometime later than 10:40pm (more likely later than 11:25pm) on March 10th, went to fetch JRN (from where, since her landlord testified that JRN did not come home, and how would this reportedly hateful 'mother-in-law' get JRN to even get into a vehicle with her, under the circumstances), drive her out to Balzac, kill her, dump her, clean up the van so that KR wouldn't notice a thing, and return the van to where KR lived with his sister, without anyone seeing, in time for him to leave for his court appointment a few hours later?

All the defence has to do is to create enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, and if one way of doing that is to throw the accused's own mother under suspicion publicly, with no evidence provided, that is a small price to pay in return for 25 years of freedom for her son. moo.

 

[deugirtni]

I wonder if the sweatshirt is also the same as the one Jessica wore in the pic that was circulated during her disappearance. I think it was a blue hoody. Kevin's Mom could have given it to her prior.

Yes, there was no mention (that we know of) during the trial about this piece of clothing, other than it seems JRN was wearing it when she was stabbed some 75+ times. It doesn't make sense that her dress was pulled down, but yet she wore a hoodie, but I suppose it was still rather cold on that fateful night (March 10th), and so it isn't surprising that she may have been wearing one on top of her work dress. No evidence seems to have been presented by the defence that the hoodie belonged to KR's mother, other than their say-so, but even if it was his mother's, who is to say when and how she happened to take possession of it - or are they proposing that the hateful mother-in-law brought it to keep her daughter-in-law warm and cozy while she savagely murdered her? And what about the dress pulled down to JRN's waist - I suppose the defence's theory would be that the mother staged it to look like some kind of sex crime?

Could there not have been a copy (or many copies) made of 'the AA papers', and kept at JRN's home (or in various locations)? Is there even such a thing as 'AA papers'? Call me ill-informed, but I thought the entire foundation of AA was based on anonymity, so what kind of 'papers' is AA keeping that would assist JRN in some way in family court? Did these 'AA papers' come up in evidence during the Crown's case and entered into evidence? Or are these 'papers' manufactured out of the blue, out of the mouths of defence lawyers who weren't even there? (KR would have had to have taken the stand to talk about these AA papers, since it was apparently only him that saw her with them, on that fateful night. - Why didn't KR take the stand in his own defence if he believes he has evidence to exonerate himself? Concerned about the cross exam?)

And, for that matter, same with the housekeys. JRN's home and bedroom were not crimescenes and were not sealed off nor guarded. JRN rented a basement room, or 'the basement' (?) from her landlord ("Hahn said Newman, who rented a room in the basement of his southeast home"-from Trial Day#2); this isn't like JRN was renting a private, secured apartment or condo, it seems she was more, what I refer to as 'sharing a house' (shared living quarters with separate sleeping quarters). JRN's mom, IIRC, lived in BC, it is possible that she asked her daughter's landlord after she 'disappeared', to search for something in her room? Is it not conceivable that he may have found the keys somewhere else in the house and put them on the chair in her room? It was never said whether JRN's housekeys were found in her purse (some items were listed, however it is not clear if the contents were listed in their entirety, or if only a sampling of the items were listed in the article (Day 3 of the trial, I believe), but regardless, who is to say she didn't have 2 sets of keys, and she also could have left her keys at home, either accidentally or deliberately - it's not like she necessarily needed them, considering she didn't have car keys, and she lived with others who were at home.

 

[MistyWaters]

All my opinion -- what makes sense to me is the media was not allowed to report on the testimony of certain witnesses including KRs mother because of a publication ban specifically relating to the child of KR and JRN who was at one time (or who still is) under the care of Alberta Child Services. The publication ban protects the identity of both the child and the parent/guardian "if the publication reveals that the child is receiving, or has received, intervention services".
http://www.humanservices.alberta.ca/documents/Publication-Ban-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Given it was reported the van belonged to the mother, Kevin drove it and he allegedly committed the murder of JR while she was in the van, the mother brought the van to a pick and pull lot - all that certainly required the jury to hear her trial testimony. But nowhere was it reported, other than in opening statements. So that's why I think a publication ban was issued by the court on her entire testimony during which time she also testified about the same issues mentioned in the defense theory, as a prosecution witness cross-examined by the defense.

About AA and alcohol Although I don't have the link at hand it was also stated that JRN "wasn't able to drive". Either she'd never passed a drivers license test - which I'm just not going to believe about a mother of three who moved out of province - or she incurred an impaired driving charge. KR also told LE he believed JRN was missing because she was on a drinking binge.

Sadly alcoholism is a real problem faced by many and it happens to everyday people who are mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. If alcohol was also the reason JRN lost custody although she was working to overcome it through AA's 12 step program that's a reality but it certainly didn't make her a bad person or a person deserving of murder. But I notice at times there's also an odd tendency to elevate a murder victim to virtual sainthood status....somewhat ironic imo as denial is also a key factor with any addiction.

As for the defense opening statement, as lawyers are not under oath, if my theory about publication bans is correct, I wonder if the media is "pushing the card" so to speak in the reporting of the lawyer's comments pertaining to a witness who's testimony was banned from publication. In this province the ban has been a highly controversial issue because the same act also forbid the media from reporting anything of the deaths of children that have occurred while directly under the care of the Ministry of Child Services.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-child-intervention-publication-ban-1.4076754

 

[MistyWaters]

If the defence was serious in its allegations, why not do a real defence, by proving through evidence that what they were saying was true? ie was the videotape that 'clearly showed' the housekeys NOT present, shown to the jury? Or was it just stated by the lawyer? Normally during a trial if a video is presented in evidence, it is presented by a duly qualified person who is introduced to the court - unless that same video showing this, had already been presented by a Crown witness, and replayed by the defence? (But again, we don't know what goes on in court with the lacking reporting!).

It is pretty simple for legal counsel to say 'whatever' during the defence, without it being backed up with *evidence*. So let's say the jury accepts this meager offering as 'reasonable doubt' - what happens next? Police do a whole new investigation into KR's mother, and what if they then find that oh look, that video showed the wrong chair, it was actually *that* chair that had the keys.. or they find KR's mother happens to have an ironclad alibi.. or the fellow who believes he saw JRN, discovers his employer's work records were in error? Then what? Can't go back to court with KR again.

I wonder what the defence proposes is the explanation for how KR's mom got her hands on the van sometime later than 10:40pm (more likely later than 11:25pm) on March 10th, went to fetch JRN (from where, since her landlord testified that JRN did not come home, and how would this reportedly hateful 'mother-in-law' get JRN to even get into a vehicle with her, under the circumstances), drive her out to Balzac, kill her, dump her, clean up the van so that KR wouldn't notice a thing, and return the van to where KR lived with his sister, without anyone seeing, in time for him to leave for his court appointment a few hours later?

All the defence has to do is to create enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, and if one way of doing that is to throw the accused's own mother under suspicion publicly, with no evidence provided, that is a small price to pay in return for 25 years of freedom for her son. moo.

To your comment "It is pretty simple for legal counsel to say 'whatever' during the defence, without it being backed up with *evidence*."

I disagree that defense opening statements can be created out of thin air and what would be the point, given the jury will be instructed to only consider the evidence. And as a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty, the role of his defence is not ever to "prove" innocence. But they indeed have the right to raise questions about the prosecutions evidence as it may lead to creating reasonable doubt in the opinion of the jurors.

"All defences – whether one is speaking of true defences or defences in the broader sense – can arise from the evidence called by the Crown or the accused. A defence can only be left with the jury (or considered by a judge trying the case without a jury) where there is an "air of reality" to the defence on the evidence. That air of reality can arise from the Crown's case and/or from the defence case if one is called. It is not necessary for an accused to testify or call other evidence to raise a defence. If the evidence called by the Crown is sufficient to raise an air of reality to a defence, the jury must consider whether the defence applies, most on the standard of whether it raises a reasonable doubt."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law_of_Canada

 

[MistyWaters]

Finally found the media reference, according to KR, "which led him to getting primary parenting" of his son. I'm most certainly not suggesting that alcohol issues ever justify murder nor defending the media, only that Privacy Legislation in Canada influences what trial testimony the media is allowed to publish and what not if Child Services had intervened.

For all we know, it could've been KRs mother who also initiated the intervention. If indeed that's so, this trial is not an example of crappy reporting -- the media is required to follow the law. Whether those laws are truly in the best interests of the general public is another topic entirely. But as far as the jurors, who hear what goes on while they're inside the courtroom, regardless of publication bans, it doesn't make any difference in their verdict considering their standard instruction is not to view media reporting during the trial.

".....In the police interview, the accused said he picked up Newman at 9 p.m. at the Water Grill bar, they went for a quick coffee to discuss a court proceeding the following day involving shared custody of their son and he dropped her off at her home at 9:30 p.m.

“She said she was going out,” Rubletz told the officers in a taped interview played before a Court of Queen’s Bench jury.

Rubletz said Newman failed to show up in court the next day.

“I figured she just went out drinking,” he said, adding Newman had an alcohol issue in the past, which led to him getting primary parenting of their son...."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...-missing-ex-girlfriend-was-likely-on-a-bender

 

[deugirtni]

All my opinion -- what makes sense to me is the media was not allowed to report on the testimony of certain witnesses including KRs mother because of a publication ban specifically relating to the child of KR and JRN who was at one time (or who still is) under the care of Alberta Child Services. The publication ban protects the identity of both the child and the parent/guardian "if the publication reveals that the child is receiving, or has received, intervention services".
http://www.humanservices.alberta.ca/documents/Publication-Ban-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Given it was reported the van belonged to the mother, Kevin drove it and he allegedly committed the murder of JR while she was in the van, the mother brought the van to a pick and pull lot - all that certainly required the jury to hear her trial testimony. But nowhere was it reported, other than in opening statements. So that's why I think a publication ban was issued by the court on her entire testimony during which time she also testified about the same issues mentioned in the defense theory, as a prosecution witness cross-examined by the defense.

About AA and alcohol Although I don't have the link at hand it was also stated that JRN "wasn't able to drive". Either she'd never passed a drivers license test - which I'm just not going to believe about a mother of three who moved out of province - or she incurred an impaired driving charge. KR also told LE he believed JRN was missing because she was on a drinking binge.

Sadly alcoholism is a real problem faced by many and it happens to everyday people who are mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. If alcohol was also the reason JRN lost custody although she was working to overcome it through AA's 12 step program that's a reality but it certainly didn't make her a bad person or a person deserving of murder. But I notice at times there's also an odd tendency to elevate a murder victim to virtual sainthood status....somewhat ironic imo as denial is also a key factor with any addiction.

As for the defense opening statement, as lawyers are not under oath, if my theory about publication bans is correct, I wonder if the media is "pushing the card" so to speak in the reporting of the lawyer's comments pertaining to a witness who's testimony was banned from publication. In this province the ban has been a highly controversial issue because the same act also forbid the media from reporting anything of the deaths of children that have occurred while directly under the care of the Ministry of Child Services.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-child-intervention-publication-ban-1.4076754

There *may* be publication bans in effect on certain topics (I know I read somewhere that the child's name could not be published), but that does not preclude reporters from reporting on *who* is testifying, or even that there *is* a publication ban in effect which does not allow them to report certain testimony.

I'm having difficulty finding where the linked article states that it is forbidden for media to report anything of the deaths of children occurring while under the care of the Ministry, but in any case, that has little to do with KR's murder trial. JRN's child was not a foster child in care. If KR's mother was a Crown witness in this trial in regard to taking the van to the auto wreckers, that has nothing to do with JRN's child and there would be no reason why the hiding of evidence could not be reported upon. I believe the lack of reporting has more to do with financially struggling news venues and corresponding cutbacks, news stories competing for coverage space, etc.

The Crown may have called staff at the auto wreckers to testify as to who brought the van in, KR's mother would not necessarily need to testify to that, and who knows if she would have admitted it.

 

[deugirtni]

To your comment "It is pretty simple for legal counsel to say 'whatever' during the defence, without it being backed up with *evidence*."

I disagree that defense opening statements can be created out of thin air and what would be the point, given the jury will be instructed to only consider the evidence. And as a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty, the role of his defence is not ever to "prove" innocence. But they indeed have the right to raise questions about the prosecutions evidence as it may lead to creating reasonable doubt in the opinion of the jurors.

"All defences – whether one is speaking of true defences or defences in the broader sense – can arise from the evidence called by the Crown or the accused. A defence can only be left with the jury (or considered by a judge trying the case without a jury) where there is an "air of reality" to the defence on the evidence. That air of reality can arise from the Crown's case and/or from the defence case if one is called. It is not necessary for an accused to testify or call other evidence to raise a defence. If the evidence called by the Crown is sufficient to raise an air of reality to a defence, the jury must consider whether the defence applies, most on the standard of whether it raises a reasonable doubt."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law_of_Canada

I am not disputing that the (any) accused has the right to present a defence. I am saying that the accused's lawyer is not allowed to give evidence through his own words. They need to call witnesses to present whatever evidence it is that they are presenting, just as the Crown does.