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

[MistyWaters]

Indeed, we really know little or nothing about the days or weeks preceeding the murder. Why or how it came it be the child was in KRs care. Not even how long the two were estranged.

Toss in confusing and possibly innacurate media reporting prior to the trial --

"Rubletz is the father of her youngest son. Family confirmed the two were in the middle of a custody dispute and said Newman was hoping for shared custody.

Police have already searched the home he shared with her."
https://globalnews.ca/news/2073951/exclusive-new-details-in-murder-investigation-of-jessica-newman/

*****
Regardless, if there was evidence regarding any of those details that supported a conviction I'd think the Prosecution would introduce it. The only reason why not that I can think of is because the facts would be beneficial to the defence of KR. If the Prosecution doesn't introduce it, then the information is left unknown.

Of interest, this suggests the van wasn't owned by KR. Wonder what his story really is because at age 31 it appears he's still being financially supported by his family.

"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://calgaryherald.com/storyline/...ictim-was-feeding-false-information-to-police

 

[deugirtni]

Indeed, we really know little or nothing about the days or weeks preceeding the murder. Why or how it came it be the child was in KRs care. Not even how long the two were estranged.

Toss in confusing and possibly innacurate media reporting prior to the trial --

"Rubletz is the father of her youngest son. Family confirmed the two were in the middle of a custody dispute and said Newman was hoping for shared custody.

Police have already searched the home he shared with her."
https://globalnews.ca/news/2073951/exclusive-new-details-in-murder-investigation-of-jessica-newman/

*****
Regardless, if there was evidence regarding any of those details that supported a conviction I'd think the Prosecution would introduce it. The only reason why not that I can think of is because the facts would be beneficial to the defence of KR. If the Prosecution doesn't introduce it, then the information is left unknown.

Of interest, this suggests the van wasn't owned by KR. Wonder what his story really is because at age 31 it appears he's still being financially supported by his family.

"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://calgaryherald.com/storyline/...ictim-was-feeding-false-information-to-police

Yes, it seems he used the van as his 'work van', although it didn't belong to him. He also apparently lived with his family (as did JRN when the two were previously living together). And at the time of JRN's murder, he lived with one of his sisters. So it seems that although he was in his 30s and parenting his child, he wasn't doing it independently. Would he have been able to manage on his own?

Whatever was in the Crown's opening, the Crown should have proceeded to 'prove' during the trial. If they had said there was a 'custody dispute', then proof should have been part of the evidence. Hopefully one of the reporters will write a big article after the trial??

 

[deugirtni]

There was nothing (that I saw) in the news about whether police got any CCTV evidence showing KR (and possibly JRN with him) during that fateful evening. What vehicle did he pick her up and go for coffee in?

The defence seems to have opened the door to the possibility that JRN was murdered and then dumped at a later time, and that 2 weapons could have been potentially used to kill her. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that KR himself murdered her and then later dumped her in the ditch.

So much missing from trial reporting that it's impossible to even speculate on anything. We don't even know who was brought to testify for the prosecution, nor what evidence was submitted. Hopefully the jury, who sat through *all* of the evidence (that was admissible at least!), will make the right judgement.

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes, it seems he used the van as his 'work van', although it didn't belong to him. He also apparently lived with his family (as did JRN when the two were previously living together). And at the time of JRN's murder, he lived with one of his sisters. So it seems that although he was in his 30s and parenting his child, he wasn't doing it independently. Would he have been able to manage on his own?

Whatever was in the Crown's opening, the Crown should have proceeded to 'prove' during the trial. If they had said there was a 'custody dispute', then proof should have been part of the evidence. Hopefully one of the reporters will write a big article after the trial??

Yes, indeed the existence of a custody dispute or battle was refuted by their own evidence - the text msg indicating KR agreed with the 50/50 - which is why I think it's a misreporting.

I've had no luck finding "custody battle" or "custody dispute" directly quoted in Parker's opening statement. This was written by a CBC reporter the same day though so I wonder if other reporters condensed it into only the two words.

"The couple was supposed to attend court on March 11, 2015. Newman was excited at the prospect of getting more time with her son and had rearranged her schedule so that she could attend. Newman never showed up but Rubletz did."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-kevin-rubletz-murder-trial-1.4388587

However the very first witness did describe it as a battle, which might otherwise be source for media reporting (same link).

"Newman 'battling' for custody

Newman's ex-boyfriend Ryan Chamberlain is the prosecution's first witness. He dated Newman twice; in 2008 and again around the time she was killed.

"She was nice to absolutely everybody," said Chamberlain. "She was just bubbly, happy, outgoing."

Chamberlain said Newman was "battling for 50 per cent custody" of her youngest son and had been changing her life to be a better mother to her sons."

 

[MistyWaters]

Just a point, when the disappearance of JRN was first aired by the media five days after she went missing, it appears Jessica's mother didn't know of the 50/50 custody hearing. That makes me wonder if JRN had actually been considering the possibility of getting back together with KR and maybe on that fateful evening her final answer was "no".

"Jessica’s mother Rhonda Stewart said she last spoke to her daughter a week and a half ago from her home in B.C.

“She was in good spirits. I always know when something is wrong because she always phones me lots when something is wrong. She’ll phone me three times a day when something is wrong and everyday,” Rhonda Stewart said........

......“She is very trusting. Which makes me nervous because she will trust anybody and she always thinks the best of everybody even though they may not be trustworthy,” Stewart said. “She hasn’t been home and she hadn’t showed up at work which again is not like her. she didn’t called to say she wasn’t coming in nothing she just didn’t show up. and she also didn’t show up to pick her son up on Wednesday for her visitations with him.”

(However the roommate claims to have known of the custody hearing all along and was in touch with Jessica's family)

Newman’s roommate Mike Hahn has known her for about a year and dropped her off at work on Tuesday. He’s been in touch with police and Jessica’s family.

“She was in good spirits, she was going to do the night shift and she usually works days so she switched to the night shift so she could have Wednesday off to go to court for the custody hearing,” Hahn said.

https://globalnews.ca/news/1883869/24-year-old-jessica-newman-missing-since-tuesday/

 

[MistyWaters]

"Two days after the accused gave his first statement to police, he made a "significant addition to his story," said Parker.

Baker asked what route Rubletz took after dropping Newman at her home the night she was last seen.

Rubletz "hesitated," said Baker. He then told the officer that after hugging Newman and kissing her on the cheek when dropping her off, he decided to go for a drive "to clear his head."

He said he drove out to Balzac. Baker then had the accused retrace the route he had taken that night.

Under cross-examination, defence lawyer Brendan Miller suggested Rubletz didn't initially tell police about kissing Newman and wanting to get back together with her because he was at his girlfriend's house during the first interview."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...letz-murder-trial-police-interviews-1.4402009

*******
Might anyone please speculate on any reason why KR would reveal to LE that he kissed JRN and wanted to get back together with her, if it was not the truth?

As he is now accused of her murder, it's quite ironic that KR supplied the Prosecution with their theory while seeking to prove his guilt.

 

[otto]

Indeed, we really know little or nothing about the days or weeks preceeding the murder. Why or how it came it be the child was in KRs care. Not even how long the two were estranged.

Toss in confusing and possibly innacurate media reporting prior to the trial --

"Rubletz is the father of her youngest son. Family confirmed the two were in the middle of a custody dispute and said Newman was hoping for shared custody.

Police have already searched the home he shared with her."
https://globalnews.ca/news/2073951/exclusive-new-details-in-murder-investigation-of-jessica-newman/

*****
Regardless, if there was evidence regarding any of those details that supported a conviction I'd think the Prosecution would introduce it. The only reason why not that I can think of is because the facts would be beneficial to the defence of KR. If the Prosecution doesn't introduce it, then the information is left unknown.

Of interest, this suggests the van wasn't owned by KR. Wonder what his story really is because at age 31 it appears he's still being financially supported by his family.

"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://calgaryherald.com/storyline/...ictim-was-feeding-false-information-to-police

I read somewhere that Jessica and Kevin lived in Red Deer for a couple of years and that's where their son was born. After they moved to Calgary, they separated. It's quite possible that the couple was staying with Kevin's sister when Jessica decided to leave Kevin. It's possible that she needed time to secure a place to live and get a job, and during that time left their son at, for example, Kevins' sister's house. I see this as a possibility because Kevin did not have a place to live when Jessica was murdered. It sounds like he bounced between his sister's and girlfriend's houses.

It also sounds like Kevin used Jessica's partying as a reason to interfere with her access to her son. For example, when she disappeared he suggested that she was partying, and the "flirting" implies that she went home with someone and completely abandoned her job, the court hearing, and all responsibility. Kevin might have told Jessica that she could not take their son with her when she left him, but after she established a place to live and a job, she asked for fifty percent time with their son.

He probably agreed because there was no good reason to say no, yet at the same time his family wanted control of the child, and he did not want to provide child support to Jessica.

 

[otto]

There was nothing (that I saw) in the news about whether police got any CCTV evidence showing KR (and possibly JRN with him) during that fateful evening. What vehicle did he pick her up and go for coffee in?

The defence seems to have opened the door to the possibility that JRN was murdered and then dumped at a later time, and that 2 weapons could have been potentially used to kill her. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that KR himself murdered her and then later dumped her in the ditch.

So much missing from trial reporting that it's impossible to even speculate on anything. We don't even know who was brought to testify for the prosecution, nor what evidence was submitted. Hopefully the jury, who sat through *all* of the evidence (that was admissible at least!), will make the right judgement.

The defence is trying to suggest that two weapons were used, which would suggest that there were two perpetrators, which supports the suggestion that Kevin is not guilty because he was alone after allegedly dropping Jessica off at home. It's a defence trick.

 

[otto]

"Two days after the accused gave his first statement to police, he made a "significant addition to his story," said Parker.

Baker asked what route Rubletz took after dropping Newman at her home the night she was last seen.

Rubletz "hesitated," said Baker. He then told the officer that after hugging Newman and kissing her on the cheek when dropping her off, he decided to go for a drive "to clear his head."

He said he drove out to Balzac. Baker then had the accused retrace the route he had taken that night.

Under cross-examination, defence lawyer Brendan Miller suggested Rubletz didn't initially tell police about kissing Newman and wanting to get back together with her because he was at his girlfriend's house during the first interview."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...letz-murder-trial-police-interviews-1.4402009

*******
Might anyone please speculate on any reason why KR would reveal to LE that he kissed JRN and wanted to get back together with her, if it was not the truth?

As he is now accused of her murder, it's quite ironic that KR supplied the Prosecution with their theory while seeking to prove his guilt.

I think it's highly suspicious that although this is a second degree charge, Kevin had such a good hiding place for the body. He didn't just murder her between picking her up from work and dropping her off at home, and get rid of the body as fast as possible. He drove a long distance to a rural road to hide the body. That's very quick thinking for a man who accidentally killed his wife.

I see all the expressed "affection" between the two as pretend. She wanted more time with her son and would most likely be affectionately friendly and routine in comments to Kevin to achieve her goal. I don't for a minute believe that they intended to get back together. That could have been easily accomplished by Jessica going back to live with him at his sister's house, or Kevin actually renting a home where they could live together as a family. Instead it was Jessica who found a place to live, and Kevin did not move in with her. I think Kevin would say and do anything to paint Jessica in a negative light, and to minimize his responsibility in her murder. If that means implying that they were intimate and ready to live together as a family when he stabbed her seventy five times, then that's what he will say.

 

[MistyWaters]

I read somewhere that Jessica and Kevin lived in Red Deer for a couple of years and that's where their son was born. After they moved to Calgary, they separated. It's quite possible that the couple was staying with Kevin's sister when Jessica decided to leave Kevin. It's possible that she needed time to secure a place to live and get a job, and during that time left their son at, for example, Kevins' sister's house. I see this as a possibility because Kevin did not have a place to live when Jessica was murdered. It sounds like he bounced between his sister's and girlfriend's houses.

It also sounds like Kevin used Jessica's partying as a reason to interfere with her access to her son. For example, when she disappeared he suggested that she was partying, and the "flirting" implies that she went home with someone and completely abandoned her job, the court hearing, and all responsibility. Kevin might have told Jessica that she could not take their son with her when she left him, but after she established a place to live and a job, she asked for fifty percent time with their son.

He probably agreed because there was no good reason to say no, yet at the same time his family wanted control of the child, and he did not want to provide child support to Jessica.

There's several earlier posts here that indicate the child was removed from Jessica's care by Child Protective Services and KR was then granted full custody by the courts. I know earlier media reports and interviews stated exactly that, although it now appears there's no longer any trace. Just my opinion, the status of Jessica's child care was the topic of an earlier voir dire hearing and ruled inadmissible.

 

[MistyWaters]

Because there is no media link to be found, my thoughts are purely based on speculation and a lot of IFs.

What IF KR wanted to get back together with JRN even IF Child Protective Services had intervened at some point in the recent past, granting KR full custody.

I don't know the answer but IF the two of them had gotten back together, then what? IF CPS had deemed that, for example, not enough time had lapsed to ensure a risk-free environment, would the child be removed from BOTH parents?

Because I'm wondering if that would be a good reason KR and even JRN might be agreeable to attending court to seek 50/50 child custody, to facilitate future cohabitation by first gaining CPS's and the courts agreement in regard to shared parenting in general.

I'm going to admit that I'm not totally certain that KR committed this murder and what's presented during his defence will be interesting.

 

[otto]

There's several earlier posts here that indicate the child was removed from Jessica's care by Child Protective Services and KR was then granted full custody by the courts. I know earlier media reports and interviews stated exactly that, although it now appears there's no longer any trace. Just my opinion, the status of Jessica's child care was the topic of an earlier voir dire hearing and ruled inadmissible.

I have not read anything like that anywhere. Jessica and Kevin moved to Calgary together with their two year old son. Some time after they moved to Calgary, they separated. If social services was involved in removing the child, then the child would have been removed from both parents. That is, it would never be decided that Jessica would remove herself from the home.

If, after they separated, their son was in Jessica's care and Kevin's family reported a concern to social services, then it could have been decided that Jessica was an unsuitable parent, but I'm guessing that gradual visitation would have been supervised. We haven't heard anything about supervised visitation between Jessica and her son. Furthermore, if it's true that social services intervened, supervised visitation could have been completed by an agreed on family friend. If this was true, the courts should have ordered a psychological assessment and review of the parents and their homes to officially determine custody and the best interest of the child. Would the prosecution completely ignore that sort of acrimonious custody dispute in her murder and call this a "crime of passion"?

 

[otto]

Because there is no media link to be found, my thoughts are purely based on speculation and a lot of IFs.

What IF KR wanted to get back together with JRN even IF Child Protective Services had intervened at some point in the recent past, granting KR full custody.

I don't know the answer but IF the two of them had gotten back together, then what? IF CPS had deemed that, for example, not enough time had lapsed to ensure a risk-free environment, would the child be removed from BOTH parents?

Because I'm wondering if that would be a good reason KR and even JRN might be agreeable to attending court to seek 50/50 child custody, to facilitate future cohabitation by first gaining CPS's and the courts agreement in regard to shared parenting in general.

I'm going to admit that I'm not totally certain that KR committed this murder and what's presented during his defence will be interesting.

They weren't getting back together. If they were, there would be no discussion about shared custody. instead, Kevin would have stepped up as a father and secured a home where they could live as a family. He did not do that. He was irresponsibly couch surfing between his the homes of his mother, his sister, and his girlfriend when they moved to Calgary, at the time of Jessica's murder, and after her murder. Jessica had stepped up and was working and living independent of Kevin and his family. She was doing what she could to establish a home for herself and her son.

The first step to cohabitation is not shared custody, but for each of the parents to demonstrate that they can provide a stable home for the child. Jessica was doing that, Kevin was not. Kevin was expecting his sister to step up and provide care for the child while he chose to apprentice outside of Calgary.

 

[otto]

One thing that should be understood by everyone, especially the prosecutor's office and judges, is that acrimonious custody cases do not result in murder because the battling parents were suddenly madly in love and having sex in the front seat of the company van. Acrimonious custody cases result in murder because one party is so angry and frustrated with not getting what they want that they murder the other parent. Men are notoriously angry when they have to give money to the other parent to provide for the child because they view it as pocket money for the other parent rather than providing for their child.

 

[deugirtni]

I have not read anything like that anywhere. Jessica and Kevin moved to Calgary together with their two year old son. Some time after they moved to Calgary, they separated. If social services was involved in removing the child, then the child would have been removed from both parents. That is, it would never be decided that Jessica would remove herself from the home.

If, after they separated, their son was in Jessica's care and Kevin's family reported a concern to social services, then it could have been decided that Jessica was an unsuitable parent, but I'm guessing that gradual visitation would have been supervised. We haven't heard anything about supervised visitation between Jessica and her son. Furthermore, if it's true that social services intervened, supervised visitation could have been completed by an agreed on family friend. If this was true, the courts should have ordered a psychological assessment and review of the parents and their homes to officially determine custody and the best interest of the child. Would the prosecution completely ignore that sort of acrimonious custody dispute in her murder and call this a "crime of passion"?

Just wanted to make a point about the 'crime of passion' phrase. Personally, I didn't take it that the Crown intended it to mean anything about the two of them possibly being sexually or lovingly passionate when she was murdered, but rather, I think the Crown meant that the murder was a crime of passion, in the sense that it was caused by some kind of sudden, volcanically erupting emotion, probably by provocation (not that JRN may have willingly or knowingly provoked him, but that something that came to light for KR on that fateful night that caused him to completely lose it), .. unlike say, a murderer who kills someone who is completely meaningless or unknown in his/her life. The Crown has said, as far as I have read, 'custody dispute', and 'custody battle', and those things can surely lead to a 'crime of passion', whether or not there was any passion (or sex, or sexting, or using endearing names for one another, etc) between the two parents. jmo.

 

[otto]

Just wanted to make a point about the 'crime of passion' phrase. Personally, I didn't take it that the Crown intended it to mean anything about the two of them possibly being sexually or lovingly passionate when she was murdered, but rather, I think the Crown meant that the murder was a crime of passion, in the sense that it was caused by some kind of sudden, volcanically erupting emotion, probably by provocation (not that JRN may have willingly or knowingly provoked him, but that something that came to light for KR on that fateful night that caused him to completely lose it), .. unlike say, a murderer who kills someone who is completely meaningless or unknown in his/her life. The Crown has said, as far as I have read, 'custody dispute', and 'custody battle', and those things can surely lead to a 'crime of passion', whether or not there was any passion (or sex, or sexting, or using endearing names for one another, etc) between the two parents. jmo.

I get that. I think this was premeditated murder related to the acrimonious custody dispute. I think Kevin intentionally had a weapon with him that could inflict mortal wounds [more than a pocket knife for pealing an apple], a pre-planned carefully decided location to dump the body, and that he intentionally made a plan to pick Jessica up from work at evening with the intent to suggest that she went out to the bars to flirt.

I do not at all believe that Jessica did anything to provoke him the night before she eagerly hoped that he would simply agree to shared equal custody in court. If anyone provoked an argument, it would have been Kevin, and therefore crime of passion does not apply. He cannot claim crime of passion if he created a situation where she drove him so crazy that he snapped an murdered her.

 

[deugirtni]

There's several earlier posts here that indicate the child was removed from Jessica's care by Child Protective Services and KR was then granted full custody by the courts. I know earlier media reports and interviews stated exactly that, although it now appears there's no longer any trace. Just my opinion, the status of Jessica's child care was the topic of an earlier voir dire hearing and ruled inadmissible.

I don't recall there being anything in 'MSM' about the child having been removed from JRN's care by CPS, however there *were* lots of accusations flying in the comments of MSM articles posted on at least one news reporter's FB (NH). The friends and family were accusing JRN of being a drinker, and incapable of having custody of any of her children. JRN's family and friends were saying that she had really cleaned up in order to get at least part-time custody of her youngest boy. What I am imagining is the typical 'he said, she said', that can typically occur during uglier custody disputes. The couple make application to the court for sole custody, the judge might order that the 'Office of the Childrens' Lawyer' become involved, and the judge ultimately might have to make a decision, if the parents can't decide between themselves, or if there is a real risk to the child. In this couple's case, custody was likely sought by KR since he had already been living with family, along with JRN, the child was already there, and whatever other reasons were in existence at the time, and he was successful in his bid. I remember reading that JRN had 3 scheduled visits per week (in the comments of MSM FB). It seems that she then proceeded to make changes, according to her 'side', and at the time of her murder, she was apparently going to present her application for 50/50 to the court, with KR's stated blessing and support.

All of that custody piece may or may not have been admissible in this trial, we can't know that (yet) since we haven't heard probably 98% of the evidence presented. The Crown seems to have used the custody dispute as part of the motivation for the murder, so they surely would have been expected to prove it. With all of the accusations flying from KR's 'side' in regard to JRN's mothering capability, it is difficult to imagine that KR *didn't* have an issue with JRN getting 50/50, but yet he stated publicly that he needed her to have it so that he could count on her to parent the child when he took a new job. Interesting how JRN wasn't good enough to mother, but then suddenly when he got a job and apparently 'needed' her, her mothering capabilities were suitable? So which one is it?

I am getting that he was leading her on that he was supporting her application for '50/50', but in his mind, only according to his own agenda, which may have included the 3 living together again as a family, and meanwhile, she was leading him on that the family reconciliation was a possibility, but in her mind, only until she was awarded '50/50', at which time she would really have no intention at all of moving back in with him. Somehow, perhaps all of that came to light on that fateful night?

 

[deugirtni]

I get that. I think this was premeditated murder related to the acrimonious custody dispute. I think Kevin intentionally had a weapon with him that could inflict mortal wounds [more than a pocket knife for pealing an apple], a pre-planned carefully decided location to dump the body, and that he intentionally made a plan to pick Jessica up from work at evening with the intent to suggest that she went out to the bars to flirt.

I do not at all believe that Jessica did anything to provoke him the night before she eagerly hoped that he would simply agree to shared equal custody in court. If anyone provoked an argument, it would have been Kevin, and therefore crime of passion does not apply. He cannot claim crime of passion if he created a situation where she drove him so crazy that he snapped an murdered her.

Yes, could be. At 8am JRN was asking KR if they were still on for coffee, although she didn't specify the time. Then apparently KR dropped the child off to her and picked him back up, before she got a ride from her landlord to her work. The MSM article says the last text was about the child's toenails, and that the last text was sent by her at 8:40pm.. however, the restaurant where JRN worked was normally open until 10pm, and she was let off early, at 9pm, since it was a slow night. When did JRN text KR about the change in time? Was the plan to go for coffee after picking her up from work later that night, or earlier in the day during drop-off/pick-up of child? (If earlier in the day, it would have given him that much more time to do all that he needed to do that evening). It's possible that KR may have used reverse obviousness as his reason for NOT having committed the crime, since it would have been SO obvious for him to be the killer with a court date the very next morning. (ie 'do you really think I would be that stupid as to kill her on the night before a court date?') The weapon(s) used could have been standard tools used in his work and kept in his van?

"The day before he allegedly murdered his ex-girlfriend, Kevin Rubletz exchanged loving texts with her, data records show.
In an analysis done by digital forensic examination expert Const. Ian Whiffen, jurors learned the couple seemed to be getting along fine just hours before Jessica Newman was last heard from.
On March 9, 2015, Newman and Rubletz exchanged a series of notes on their phones.
“Are we still doing coffee?” Newman asked Rubletz, shortly before 8 a.m. that day.
After not getting a reply for nearly 40 minutes, Newman sent a further text.
“Okay I’m going to assume that’s a no then . . .” she wrote.
But an hour later, Rubletz responded.
“Morning beautiful,” he began.
“Sorry I didnt (sic) text left my phone at Georges (sic) haha I love you babe,” he said.
Early in the afternoon, Rubletz texted Newman to say he’d be dropping off their son that day for her regular visitation with the boy.
“Sounds good love you to (sic),” Newman replied.
Further exchanges indicate the three-year-old was dropped off and later picked up in an amicable text exchange.
“Like his toe nails? He did them himself LOL,” she told Rubletz, in the last text uploaded to her iCloud account.
....
“The last text message sent was March 10, at 8:40 p.m.,” Dyer said."

http://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...d-loving-texts-with-woman-he-allegedly-killed

 

[otto]

I don't recall there being anything in 'MSM' about the child having been removed from JRN's care by CPS, however there *were* lots of accusations flying in the comments of MSM articles posted on at least one news reporter's FB (NH). The friends and family were accusing JRN of being a drinker, and incapable of having custody of any of her children. JRN's family and friends were saying that she had really cleaned up in order to get at least part-time custody of her youngest boy. What I am imagining is the typical 'he said, she said', that can typically occur during uglier custody disputes. The couple make application to the court for sole custody, the judge might order that the 'Office of the Childrens' Lawyer' become involved, and the judge ultimately might have to make a decision, if the parents can't decide between themselves, or if there is a real risk to the child. In this couple's case, custody was likely sought by KR since he had already been living with family, along with JRN, the child was already there, and whatever other reasons were in existence at the time, and he was successful in his bid. I remember reading that JRN had 3 scheduled visits per week (in the comments of MSM FB). It seems that she then proceeded to make changes, according to her 'side', and at the time of her murder, she was apparently going to present her application for 50/50 to the court, with KR's stated blessing and support.

All of that custody piece may or may not have been admissible in this trial, we can't know that (yet) since we haven't heard probably 98% of the evidence presented. The Crown seems to have used the custody dispute as part of the motivation for the murder, so they surely would have been expected to prove it. With all of the accusations flying from KR's 'side' in regard to JRN's mothering capability, it is difficult to imagine that KR *didn't* have an issue with JRN getting 50/50, but yet he stated publicly that he needed her to have it so that he could count on her to parent the child when he took a new job. Interesting how JRN wasn't good enough to mother, but then suddenly when he got a job and apparently 'needed' her, her mothering capabilities were suitable? So which one is it?

I am getting that he was leading her on that he was supporting her application for '50/50', but in his mind, only according to his own agenda, which may have included the 3 living together again as a family, and meanwhile, she was leading him on that the family reconciliation was a possibility, but in her mind, only until she was awarded '50/50', at which time she would really have no intention at all of moving back in with him. Somehow, perhaps all of that came to light on that fateful night?

Sworn affidavits in custody disputes are full of lies and false accusations. I have not doubt that those who supported Kevin had nothing but rotten things to say about Jessica, and vice verse. That is why a custody assessment should have been ordered. In nearly all custody cases today, joint custody is awarded after mandatory mediation. I don't see any reason why this would not have been joint custody. Given that Kevin did not have his own accommodation and intended to work outside of Calgary and not take his son with him, I believe the courts would have favoured Jessica and imposed healthy care and community support to help her with parenting.

I have read that she wanted equal shared time with their son, but I have never read that she wanted Kevin to move in with her. In fact, her living accommodations were ideal for her and their son, but there was no room for him. If he wanted to live as a family, he should have found a place to live. That neither of them created a situation that included living as a family, I think it was not a plan at this time. Kevin should have provided a home for his family if he wanted to live as a family - but instead he was a couch surfer who wanted to leave Calgary for apprenticeship.

 

[MistyWaters]

I get that. I think this was premeditated murder related to the acrimonious custody dispute. I think Kevin intentionally had a weapon with him that could inflict mortal wounds [more than a pocket knife for pealing an apple], a pre-planned carefully decided location to dump the body, and that he intentionally made a plan to pick Jessica up from work at evening with the intent to suggest that she went out to the bars to flirt.

I do not at all believe that Jessica did anything to provoke him the night before she eagerly hoped that he would simply agree to shared equal custody in court. If anyone provoked an argument, it would have been Kevin, and therefore crime of passion does not apply. He cannot claim crime of passion if he created a situation where she drove him so crazy that he snapped an murdered her.

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