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

[deugirtni]

....
KR's comment below is extremely revealing. What connection did flirting have with her disappearance? None. He didn't say she tended to be too trusting and might've met up with a dangerous stranger. No, he said she flirt. Probably one of the few truthful things he told the officers. That's a motive only to him, what set HIM off. JMO

"I figured she might have just gone out drinking," Rubletz told the officers. "She doesn't remember what she does, she flirts."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...letz-murder-trial-police-interviews-1.4402009

....

Exactly... about the 'flirting' (and even the "not remembering what she does") - why was that even mentioned? Telling indeed, imho.

 

[deugirtni]

....
If he's found guilty and is convicted of 2nd degree murder that would be justice. Other than the 75 stab wounds, Crimes of Passion all too often equate to Manslaughter. 75 stab wounds represents an incredible amount of rage. But I'm reminded of the Manslaughter conviction of Nicholas Rasberry who stabbed his neighbour 37 times. Juries do odd things sometimes.

Yes, the Rasberry case was interesting.. I don't believe it had a thread here on WS.. but not much punishment for him, I believe he remains OUT of custody while he awaits his appeal?

Isn't there a main difference though, in that Rasberry was not denying that he killed his neighbour? In this case, KR is flatly denying that he killed the victim. If I were a juror I would hesitate to issue a manslaughter conviction vs a second degree murder conviction, when the accused was denying his involvement altogether.

It has been proven in court in more than one instance, that KR lies. (told his employer police had confiscated his cellphone, when meanwhile, he told police they couldn't have his cellphone since he had lost it; told police he drove JRN home and then went home, and then 2 days later changed his story to include his drive out to Balzac). How many more lies is he telling, and how can a jury now believe anything he says? jmo.

 

[deugirtni]

I don't recall reading anywhere what arrangements JRN specifically intended or even why it was a certainty that JRN would've been granted 50/50 child custody in the hearing the following day, had it occurred. Only that KR agreed to it. To go from zero/informal to 50% is quite a sharp change. Even by mutual agreement of the parents, a judge wouldn't automatically agree to 50% custody because they are representing the best interests of the child. Add in social workers who might've been involved in the past and so forth, it's not so clear cut.

So other than KR using the "good guy" ploy with visions of it culminating in his mind into a little, happy family, I can't think of one good reason why he didn't intend to dispute a 50/50 child care arrangement - as it seemed he had stable family support in terms of childcare that JRN did not, also knowing it would cost him money.

That's why I think the only reason KR agreed was because in his mind the four year (just guessing knowing the child was 3)) romantic relationship between the two of them wasn't over. When JRN wouldn't back down, the family court hearing represented a legal conclusion to him, much the same as divorce court.

It's also never been stated by the media, that I can recall, was a formal arrangement really JRN's idea or was someone in the background moving her forward? The reason I wonder, I can't help get the impression she wasn't yet at the point of knowing what sort of relationship even she wanted from KR.

The following statement can be taken a couple of ways. Does it refer to "the night of her death"? Or does "time" refer to a broader context for example "she was living at 123 Street at the time of her death". I think it's the later and the reason the media is only sharing the basic details of the trial is out of respect of the victim and consideration of the future for the young child as well.

"Parker said the relationship between Rubletz and Newman was a tumultuous one, but while they had broken up and were seeing others, they were still intimate at the time of her death."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...wman-was-killed-in-crime-of-passion-jury-told

As Otto has also mentioned, Alberta's presently in a terrible situation involving overloaded courts, several longstanding judicial vacancies, not enough courtrooms and now as a result of a recent Supreme Court ruling, charges being dropped due to delays. Justice has taken a back seat, Therefore I'd bet the prosecution would've been eager to offer KR a manslaughter "crime of passion" plea and he'd have taken it. But that didn't occur only because of the 75 stab wounds, hard to justify to the public that it wasn't intended to cause death.

JMO

Too bad there hasn't been more news coverage on the evidence submitted at trial, including regarding the status of the '50/50' arrangement. KR says he wanted her to have it, JRN was being led to believe he wanted her to have it, but yet the Crown is saying 'custody battle'. Surely they would have introduced evidence from the family court submissions and/or possible Children's Aid involvement (if there had been any)... but perhaps they did and it just wasn't covered.

 

[otto]

I hadn't realized there was an on-off again engagement happening. The prosecution really has no choice but to go where the evidence leads imo - a crime of passion.

"They called each other "sweetheart," "hunny," "love" and "babe." Those affectionate names are found throughout 3,668 text messages between Jessica Newman and Kevin Rubletz, which capture the intimate relationship between on-again, off-again couple who shared a child together......

......The messages span a one-year period from March 2014 to March 2015, during which time the couple is engaged, broken up and engaged again, all the while keeping what Whiffen characterized as a "loving tone" with each other.

Jurors also viewed a photo of Newman's hand wearing an engagement ring...."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-rubletz-murder-trial-text-messages-1.4395962

Although two people may be in a relationship or married, it does not necessarily follow that when one murders the other, it is a "crime of passion". Premeditation is more often behind the murder. Spousal homicide is a well known term because one spouse decides that murder is the easiest solution to their problems.

This couple were common law for a couple of years, had a child together, and were in the process of separating. They were in a custody dispute that would have had financial consequences such that Jessica received financial support to provide for their son. This problem was front and centre for the couple, with the decisive court hearing the morning after Jessica's murder. The easy solution for Kevin was to eliminate Jessica, and he chose that option. I highly doubt that his first thought about this solution was on the night he murdered her.

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes, the Rasberry case was interesting.. I don't believe it had a thread here on WS.. but not much punishment for him, I believe he remains OUT of custody while he awaits his appeal?

Isn't there a main difference though, in that Rasberry was not denying that he killed his neighbour? In this case, KR is flatly denying that he killed the victim. If I were a juror I would hesitate to issue a manslaughter conviction vs a second degree murder conviction, when the accused was denying his involvement altogether.

It has been proven in court in more than one instance, that KR lies. (told his employer police had confiscated his cellphone, when meanwhile, he told police they couldn't have his cellphone since he had lost it; told police he drove JRN home and then went home, and then 2 days later changed his story to include his drive out to Balzac). How many more lies is he telling, and how can a jury now believe anything he says? jmo.

Yes you're right, that there was confession in that case is the difference. The numerous lies told by KR once he became a POI are insightful into his deceitful nature. If I was a juror I'd be contemplating why he had any reason to lie if he was innocent and so far I'd sure be drawing a blank. The deception appears to reflect the past family dynamics in general, for example taking the van to the auto wreckers. Cover up, hide, lie rather than practise the art of applying integrity to cope with the challenges that life poses, becoming all too common imo.

This case is just real sad.....a needless tragedy.

 

[MistyWaters]

Although two people may be in a relationship or married, it does not necessarily follow that when one murders the other, it is a "crime of passion". Premeditation is more often behind the murder. Spousal homicide is a well known term because one spouse decides that murder is the easiest solution to their problems.

This couple were common law for a couple of years, had a child together, and were in the process of separating. They were in a custody dispute that would have had financial consequences such that Jessica received financial support to provide for their son. This problem was front and centre for the couple, with the decisive court hearing the morning after Jessica's murder. The easy solution for Kevin was to eliminate Jessica, and he chose that option. I highly doubt that his first thought about this solution was on the night he murdered her.

I agree, given the murder occured the night before the custody hearing, on the surface the motive could've been avoidance of child support, preplanned and deliberate. But thus far there's no evidence to support it, only to the contrary.

The victim was not kidnapped from her place of employment.

The accused agreed to 50/50 according to text messages.

3,688 text messages and no animosity, the overall tone between the two described as "loving".

The child was already removed from JRN, making it a entirely different situation than a traditional relationship breakdown agreeing or disagreeing to who gets or pays what.

Aside from no proof, another reason the prosecution might not want to open the door to custody battle/child support is because that potentially gives the defence opportunity to introduce evidence as to why it was unlikely JRN would've been successful in being granted anything more than weekend visits. We don't know much about her past or why she didn't have custody of any of her three children. And I don't think It's necessary that we know.

My point is if the prosecution dwelved down that road, there's a chance the jury would conclude it's doubtful the court would've awarded 50/50 custody anyway and then out goes the motive of avoidance of high child maintence. It also unnecessarily risks a defence strategy of portraying JRN as a bad mother and victim shaming/blaming, something prosecutions tend to avoid whenever possible. At worst, considering KR stepped in to do the right thing by giving his child (or it appears) a stable living environment as opposed to a foster home, it puts him in favourable light.

JMO

ETA - I still think it was somebody else who convinced JRN to go for the 50/50. Somebody who truly believed it was in JRNs best interest and perhaps for the financial benefit as well but didn't know there was still sparks of romance between the two. Might've family or friends from BC, I don't know. Then on the other side is KRs family involvement. I'd be willing to bet his family didn't know that KR still had the hots for JRN either (alleged by prosecution, as per text msgs).

It sort of reminds me of other drama-based situations where caring people on the parameter gradually become overly involved in the lives of others, sometime viewing it as a personal win/lose situation if things don't go the way they think it should. As a result the wants and needs of the two people and child in the centre of it all get entirely overlooked.

 

[MistyWaters]

So the stabbing occured through the hoody but the upper portion of the black lace dress had no "defects" and that's how it was determined it had been pulled down to the waist prior to the vicious assault...? But we don't know if JKN resisted sexual advances from the accused but that scenario would seem more plausible imo. It'd be easier for him to pull down her strapless dress than remove a hoody.

"Adeagbo said a hoody found on Newman’s body had 75 separate defects in the material caused by a sharp instrument."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-kevin-rubletz-murder-trial-1.4388587

The prosecutions' opening statement --
"The Crown's theory is that Newman was sitting in the front seat of Rubletz' van in a state of undress — when her body was found, Newman's black lace dress was found pulled down to her waist — indicates the killing was spontaneous but intentional.

"Her state of undress infers the murder happened while she was intimate and vulnerable," said Parker.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-kevin-rubletz-murder-trial-1.4388587

 

[otto]

The reporting is bad for the Laura Babcock trial too.. only 1 dedicated reporter (who isn't the best), and a TV news reporter who is really good, but not always able to make it to the trial. But yes, this trial's coverage is ridiculous!

I'm thinking how volatile one's emotions could potentially be, when it comes to feeling protective of your children, or even the 'sharing' thing, holidays, etc., it can be really difficult if two parents don't have a good relationship, or if the two have different standards, etc. - in addition to the money thing, which could be substantial, couldn't it(?), depending on KR's earnings in relation to JRN's? I had understood both of them (accused and victim) had another relationship, so I'm not getting the part for how KR could have been so emotionally charged if something changed in regard to his relationship with JRN - unless he had set everything up to be amenable as far as custody, only to discover that JRN was dumping him and moving in with another man or something? (the RC fellow perhaps?) And then he realized he was screwed as far as what he had already agreed to, when it wasn't exactly the same circumstances that he had been anticipating?

I think they were hanging onto each other and playing at old habits for the sake of getting something from the other. Jessica wanted equal time with their son, and if that meant having sport sex with her ex and using cute names, she probably played along. He wanted information about her circumstances and suitability as a parent, so he probably played along to get information. When push came to shove, he didn't want to give her anything. When he realized that she would be granted equal care of their son, he did what he thought he had to do to retain complete control of his life - and their two year old son.

At the same, they had relationships with others who were more important in their separate lives as they moved forward with their lives.

 

[otto]

I don't recall reading anywhere what arrangements JRN specifically intended or even why it was a certainty that JRN would've been granted 50/50 child custody in the hearing the following day, had it occurred. Only that KR agreed to it. To go from zero/informal to 50% is quite a sharp change. Even by mutual agreement of the parents, a judge wouldn't automatically agree to 50% custody because they are representing the best interests of the child. Add in social workers who might've been involved in the past and so forth, it's not so clear cut.

So other than KR using the "good guy" ploy with visions of it culminating in his mind into a little, happy family, I can't think of one good reason why he didn't intend to dispute a 50/50 child care arrangement - as it seemed he had stable family support in terms of childcare that JRN did not, also knowing it would cost him money.

That's why I think the only reason KR agreed was because in his mind the four year (just guessing knowing the child was 3)) romantic relationship between the two of them wasn't over. When JRN wouldn't back down, the family court hearing represented a legal conclusion to him, much the same as divorce court.

It's also never been stated by the media, that I can recall, was a formal arrangement really JRN's idea or was someone in the background moving her forward? The reason I wonder, I can't help get the impression she wasn't yet at the point of knowing what sort of relationship even she wanted from KR.

The following statement can be taken a couple of ways. Does it refer to "the night of her death"? Or does "time" refer to a broader context for example "she was living at 123 Street at the time of her death". I think it's the later and the reason the media is only sharing the basic details of the trial is out of respect of the victim and consideration of the future for the young child as well.

"Parker said the relationship between Rubletz and Newman was a tumultuous one, but while they had broken up and were seeing others, they were still intimate at the time of her death."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...wman-was-killed-in-crime-of-passion-jury-told

As Otto has also mentioned, Alberta's presently in a terrible situation involving overloaded courts, several longstanding judicial vacancies, not enough courtrooms and now as a result of a recent Supreme Court ruling, charges being dropped due to delays. Justice has taken a back seat, Therefore I'd bet the prosecution would've been eager to offer KR a manslaughter "crime of passion" plea and he'd have taken it. But that didn't occur only because of the 75 stab wounds, hard to justify to the public that it wasn't intended to cause death.

JMO

The prosecutor has assumed that because the top of her black lace dress was pulled down when her body was found - along with seventy five stab wounds to her chest - she was intimate with the suspect at the time she was murdered. That is the foundation for the "crime of passion". I find this theory ludicrous.

 

[MistyWaters]

The prosecutor has assumed that because the top of her black lace dress was pulled down when her body was found - along with seventy five stab wounds to her chest - she was intimate with the suspect at the time she was murdered. That is the foundation for the "crime of passion". I find this theory ludicrous.

You don't think there's anything more in recent text messages to form his opinion that the two were still intimate at the time she was murdered?

Maybe it's just me but from the little we know, sharing love texts with one another just doesn't jive with a couple serious about heading to court over child custody issues.

"On March 9, 2015, the day before Rubletz is accused of murdering Newman, the two woke up and exchanged I love yous before working out the details of Newman's visit with her son. They had even planned to attend a custody hearing together set for March 11, 2015, where Rubletz had planned to support Newman in her efforts to gain 50 per cent custody of their son."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-rubletz-murder-trial-text-messages-1.4395962

 

[otto]

Yes you're right, that there was confession in that case is the difference. The numerous lies told by KR once he became a POI are insightful into his deceitful nature. If I was a juror I'd be contemplating why he had any reason to lie if he was innocent and so far I'd sure be drawing a blank. The deception appears to reflect the past family dynamics in general, for example taking the van to the auto wreckers. Cover up, hide, lie rather than practise the art of applying integrity to cope with the challenges that life poses, becoming all too common imo.

This case is just real sad.....a needless tragedy.

The big difference with Rasberry is that the male suspect claimed that the male victim made a pass at him, and therefore he "reacted normally" and stabbed the victim many, many times. If a woman reacted in the same way to a male making a pass, all men would be dead. However, because this was a two straight men, where one murdered the other, and then claimed that the other straight man made a pass, the murderer got a pass.

The suspect in this case lied about the murder, his sister lied about the time he returned home that night, and his mother, stepfather and grandparent tried to get rid of the crime scene [the van]. This was a family affair intent on protecting the suspect because they wanted to keep the child in their control, and to some degree condoned what the suspect did in order to eliminate Jessica from her son's life.

 

[otto]

You don't think there's anything more in recent text messages to form his opinion that the two were still intimate at the time she was murdered?

Maybe it's just me but from the little we know, sharing love texts with one another just doesn't jive with a couple serious about heading to court over child custody issues.

"On March 9, 2015, the day before Rubletz is accused of murdering Newman, the two woke up and exchanged I love yous before working out the details of Newman's visit with her son. They had even planned to attend a custody hearing together set for March 11, 2015, where Rubletz had planned to support Newman in her efforts to gain 50 per cent custody of their son."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-rubletz-murder-trial-text-messages-1.4395962

I think there sweet texts were nothing more than stringing each other along.

 

[deugirtni]

I agree, given the murder occured the night before the custody hearing, on the surface the motive could've been avoidance of child support, preplanned and deliberate. But thus far there's no evidence to support it, only to the contrary.

The victim was not kidnapped from her place of employment.

The accused agreed to 50/50 according to text messages.

3,688 text messages and no animosity, the overall tone between the two described as "loving".

The child was already removed from JRN, making it a entirely different situation than a traditional relationship breakdown agreeing or disagreeing to who gets or pays what.

Aside from no proof, another reason the prosecution might not want to open the door to custody battle/child support is because that potentially gives the defence opportunity to introduce evidence as to why it was unlikely JRN would've been successful in being granted anything more than weekend visits. We don't know much about her past or why she didn't have custody of any of her three children. And I don't think It's necessary that we know.

My point is if the prosecution dwelved down that road, there's a chance the jury would conclude it's doubtful the court would've awarded 50/50 custody anyway and then out goes the motive of avoidance of high child maintence. It also unnecessarily risks a defence strategy of portraying JRN as a bad mother and victim shaming/blaming, something prosecutions tend to avoid whenever possible. At worst, considering KR stepped in to do the right thing by giving his child (or it appears) a stable living environment as opposed to a foster home, it puts him in favourable light.

JMO

ETA - I still think it was somebody else who convinced JRN to go for the 50/50. Somebody who truly believed it was in JRNs best interest and perhaps for the financial benefit as well but didn't know there was still sparks of romance between the two. Might've family or friends from BC, I don't know. Then on the other side is KRs family involvement. I'd be willing to bet his family didn't know that KR still had the hots for JRN either (alleged by prosecution, as per text msgs).

It sort of reminds me of other drama-based situations where caring people on the parameter gradually become overly involved in the lives of others, sometime viewing it as a personal win/lose situation if things don't go the way they think it should. As a result the wants and needs of the two people and child in the centre of it all get entirely overlooked.

We haven't been told any real facts in regard to the status of JRN's mothering capabilities or why she didn't have custody of any of her 3 children, if each parenting arrangement was her own doing, or if it had been mandated by CAS/courts, etc. We know that JRN's parents were each raising one of her boys, while her ex was raising her youngest boy. It's possible that she had a plan to eventually bring all 3 of them into her own care under her own roof, with the first one being the youngest. Why? Because with the youngest living with her half of the time, she would receive child support from her ex, which, in addition to then receiving family benefit allowance for single moms, and working part-time, she may have felt she would be able to afford to rent a place for the older two to also live with her (ie move out of the landlord's basement).

She supposedly had the support of her ex in going after '50/50' of her youngest. He was self-reportedly going along with it. He said he 'needed' her to have it, so he could take a job (from memory, I believe that job may have been farther away). But yet, we know he was living with one of his sisters, who would presumably have continued to care for his son while he worked, presumably just as she *had* been doing. So did he really 'need' her to, or did he have a plan going on in his own mind that by 'giving' JRN 50/50, it was the first step to soon becoming a family unit again?

If JRN was leading him on with 'texts of love', so that KR would support her wish to mother her child, and KR, in turn, was leading JRN on with being supportive of her having 50/50 because he was thinking it was the first step to reconciliation.... and then suddenly on the evening before court, JRN disclosed to KR that, for whatever reason, her plans don't/won't ever include *him* living with her/getting back together.. that could have instantly changed everything. Reality could have come crashing into his thoughts.

Suddenly, KRN would realize that he was already on record for supporting his child to be gone from him for half the time, which may have been a palatable plan if he thought the 3 would be living together soon. And he would also suddenly realize that due to his supporting JRN's 50/50 request, he had also set himself up to lose a substantial portion of his income, also which may have been palatable if it was to be only for a short time until all 3 moved in together. But suddenly he discovers JRN has no intention of that ever happening.

The prosecution had already called this murder a 'crime of passion', with the couple in the midst of a 'custody battle'. If JRN had issues which would have prevented her from taking on 50% of the parenting, then why would KR have agreed to 50/50? (Surely he will have to answer that question for the jurors, since he has gone on record saying he wanted and needed her to have 50/50?) The defence can't very well rag on about how any raging issues JRN may have had in regard to parenting, if their client was publicly stating he was in agreement with the 50/50 application. They're caught between a rock and a hard place, if you ask me. Caught in another lie?

I guess my theory is that KRN was pushing for a reconciliation, and was led to believe it was happening (whether real or imagined).. which prompted him to go along with JRN's wishes, but in his mind, ONLY under the condition that they'd soon be living together where he'd continue to know what's going on with his child, keep his income within his household, and have JRN back as his common-law partner.

All just thoughts..

 

[deugirtni]

So the stabbing occured through the hoody but the upper portion of the black lace dress had no "defects" and that's how it was determined it had been pulled down to the waist prior to the vicious assault...? But we don't know if JKN resisted sexual advances from the accused but that scenario would seem more plausible imo. It'd be easier for him to pull down her strapless dress than remove a hoody.

"Adeagbo said a hoody found on Newman’s body had 75 separate defects in the material caused by a sharp instrument."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-kevin-rubletz-murder-trial-1.4388587

The prosecutions' opening statement --
"The Crown's theory is that Newman was sitting in the front seat of Rubletz' van in a state of undress — when her body was found, Newman's black lace dress was found pulled down to her waist — indicates the killing was spontaneous but intentional.

"Her state of undress infers the murder happened while she was intimate and vulnerable," said Parker.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-kevin-rubletz-murder-trial-1.4388587

Where are you seeing reference to a hoodie?

 

[MistyWaters]

Where are you seeing reference to a hoodie?

In the testimony by Medical Examiner, CBC link in your quote,

"Adeagbo said a hoody found on Newman’s body had 75 separate defects in the material caused by a sharp instrument."

 

[deugirtni]

In the testimony by Medical Examiner, CBC link in your quote,

"Adeagbo said a hoody found on Newman’s body had 75 separate defects in the material caused by a sharp instrument."

Both of those links show me this: "
[h=1]Woman's stabbing death a case of 'tortured love,' prosecution tells ex-boyfriend's murder trial[/h]
[h=3]Kevin Rubletz is charged with 2nd-degree murder[/h] By Meghan Grant, CBC News Posted: Nov 06, 2017 5:00 AM MT Last Updated: Nov 06, 2017 2:14 PM MT
"

 

[MistyWaters]

Both of those links show me this: "
[h=1]Woman's stabbing death a case of 'tortured love,' prosecution tells ex-boyfriend's murder trial[/h]
[h=3]Kevin Rubletz is charged with 2nd-degree murder[/h] By Meghan Grant, CBC News Posted: Nov 06, 2017 5:00 AM MT Last Updated: Nov 06, 2017 2:14 PM MT
"

My sincere apologies, I've too many open windows.

This one:
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/homicide-victim-jessica-newman-stabbed-four-times-in-the-heart

 

[deugirtni]

From yesterday's testimony from the ME:

"Homicide victim Jessica Newman stabbed four times in the heart

.....
“Would you agree this is consistent with the possibility of more than one weapon?” Miller asked Adeagbo.

“I generally don’t use the word consistent,” the doctor replied.

“It is possible that it could be more than one knife,” he added.

“And therefore it’s possible there could be more than one assailant?” Miller pressed.

“There could have been, I don’t know,” Adeagbo said.

“Could it be possible that there is . . . more than one knife, yes.

“Is it possible that each knife was used by one person, yes, is it possible that each knife was used by different persons, yes.”
....

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.

Adeagbo said a hoody found on Newman’s body had 75 separate defects in the material caused by a sharp instrument.
....

“On the heart there were four wounds,” the doctor told Parker.

“All the four were through the left side of the heart, the left ventricle.”

He said three of the four were particularly deep.

“Out of the four wounds on the left side of the heart, three of them were deep enough to get to the septum (which separates the left and right sides of the organ),” he said.

“That would be rapidly fatal.”

He said because of the degradation of the body he couldn’t tell how long Newman had been in the ditch before she was found.
“We can’t adequately or accurately answer that question,” Adeagbo said.

The five-man, six-woman jury hearing the case has been dismissed until Monday, when Parker said he will likely close his case.

...."

http://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/homicide-victim-jessica-newman-stabbed-four-times-in-the-heart

 

[deugirtni]

I completely missed the part about the hoodie when I read that article last night. I thought there must be another article, by CBC (Megan Grant), but I guess not! So are we to believe the couple were being 'intimate', with the top half of her dress having been willingly pulled down to her waist, but meanwhile the hoodie was worn at the same time and the killer stabbed through the fabric of the hoodie? That more suggests that the dress was pulled down to make it *appear* to be perhaps a sexually motivated crime, imo.

Where was her black jacket, was it never found?

Did I miss the evidence about the blood found inside KR's van? Or did this not get reported on in the news?

Were the tools which KR dropped off at his boss's home ever confiscated and examined for blood?

If anyone has attended the trial, it would be great if that person would write a book. Terrible terrible coverage of this trial.

 

[deugirtni]

Diagram of heart in a female body, showing left ventricle:

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/hhw/anatomy