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

[deugirtni]

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

All of that is rather irrelevant. This discussion arose because the Crown apparently was quoted saying the couple were in a custody dispute, but yet the accused stated publicly that he supported JRN's application for 50/50, wanted and needed her to have it, so therefore, where was the dispute, and as far as it has been reported, the Crown hasn't brought forth evidence to prove their statement that there *was* a custody dispute going on between the two. That is the only point that was being made. In speaking about the existence of a dispute, details would not necessarily have needed to be presented - something along the lines of, 'altho KR said he supported JRN's 50/50 application, court records proved differently, showing the couple were disputing custody/parenting arrangements, but a publication ban is in effect and we cannot report on the details'... or something. I believe that much was left out of the reporting on this trial, jmo, so personally, I am left wondering whether the Crown failed to prove their points, or whether certain points were proven, but simply weren't reported upon. It seems only the jury, and whoever else was at the trial in person every minute, would know for sure.

 

[deugirtni]

....

Parker, in arguing for a conviction, said Rubletz had to reveal he’d gone to the Balzac area the night of March 10, 2015, after police raised the possibility CCTV and cellphone records could track his movements.

In a March 16 interview, Rubletz said he’d driven from Forest Lawn — after picking up Newman at work and driving her home — to Balzac to clear his head after she’d kissed him on the cheek.

He told police the peck left him wondering about their on-again, off-again relationship and he went on a lengthy drive, to the Balzac overpass north of the city, to think about it.

“Kevin Rubletz is worried the phone will put him not only at Balzac at the time of the murder, but where the body was,” Parker said.

The prosecutor noted that on March 23, Rubletz also told his then-boss, Tim Lambert, that Newman’s mother was feeding police false information about him “driving the back roads at CrossIron Mills.”

“No one in March knows anything about the back roads of CrossIron Mills but two people, one of them is dead … the other is Kevin Rubletz.”

“It is the defendant who injected CrossIron Mills into the narrative not once, but twice.”

....

Miller suggested Rubletz’s mother, Cheryl Rubletz Williams and possibly his stepfather, Joe Williams, could have been the killers.

He said the mother did not like Newman and was angry her son was going to agree to 50/50 parenting with the boy they shared.

“She loved her grandson and she really didn’t want Jessica to have him,” Miller said.

Justice Glen Poelman will give jurors final instructions Thursday morning.

http://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/only-murder-suspect-knew-where-body-of-his-ex-girlfriend-would-be-found-says-crown

 

[deugirtni]

....

It's a case of "redemption interrupted," prosecutor Shane Parker said to jurors in his closing arguments Wednesday at Kevin Rubletz's second-degree murder trial.

....

But when she began bettering herself — drinking less, going to the gym and dating another man — Rubletz found his "fuel for murder," according to the Crown.

Closing statements were made by Crown and defence lawyers on Wednesday.

Parker said Rubletz's rage at the fact Newman no longer depended on him festered into a "contorted, twisted passion."

....

But in a second interview, when investigators told Rubletz they would be collecting surveillance camera video from that night, he then said he had driven to Balzac to clear his head.

"Of all the places in the world, he injects Balzac into the investigation, two months before Jessica Newman is found," Parker told jurors.

....

Despite exchanging thousands of texts, after March 10, 2015, Rubletz never messaged Newman again.

....

Miller reminded jurors they must acquit if they have a reasonable doubt.

"You have to act on it," he said.

Jurors will hear final instructions on how to apply the law to their deliberations from Court of Queen's Bench Justice Glen Poelman before being sequestered on Thursday.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...letz-murder-trial-closing-arguments-1.4414947

 

[deugirtni]

This is one *interesting* bit of information (imo) (from the above link):

"Despite exchanging thousands of texts, after March 10, 2015, Rubletz never messaged Newman again."

 

[MistyWaters]

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.

That's not quite true that the defence must call their own witnesses in order to offer any defence. During any trial the defence is given the opportunity to cross-examine Crown witnesses regarding their testimony. See the link in my post #637.

 

[MistyWaters]

This is one *interesting* bit of information (imo) (from the above link):

"Despite exchanging thousands of texts, after March 10, 2015, Rubletz never messaged Newman again."

It is except all the text messages presented as evidence were retrieved from JRNs iCloud and we don't know when her iCloud ceased uploads. But we also know KR claimed to have lost his cellphone so any texts not uploaded to JRNs iCloud would be lost.

Just my opinion but it appears there's weakness in the case because LE didn't take JRNs disappearance seriously at the onset. Maybe it was because of the somewhat sketchy area in Calgary where she lived or worked or maybe because there was some instability in her lifestyle or maybe only because the vast majority of missing persons reports end with the person being located. But I get the impression it was only when her body was found two months later by a road construction crew, that LE really began to a serious investigation. By that time evidence such as CCTV cameras proving or disproving KRs activities including evidence regarding the alleged "botched cleanup" or what other vehicle did he take to the court hearing, etc.

If I was a juror I would really want to hear testimony regarding the body discovery and if it could be determined that she was in the same location for the entire two months including soil sampling indicating blood loss. There's an arial photo somewhere showing the location to be very near the edge of the country road. That's the part that perplexes me. Why wasn't her body found at the location sooner? The fact that he made that disclosure of his drive to Balzac area to LE early on, only now after the fact, is being presented at evidence of his guilt.

"Two days after the accused gave his first statement to police, he made a "significant addition to his story," said Parker.......He said he drove out to Balzac. Baker then had the accused retrace the route he had taken that night......Baker also said in cross-examination that police used an investigative technique on Rubletz called a "stim," where information is released to the suspect in an effort to prompt a reaction that may lead to evidence."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...letz-murder-trial-police-interviews-1.4402009

ETA: so this "stim" to trick a witness into believing LE has evidence but then LE doesn't investigate any further? It appears to me the only evidence they hoped it would lead to was a confession.

 

[deugirtni]

Police had been 'watching' KR since his second interview, when he changed his story. Up until the time when JRN's body was found, it seems LE's hands were tied in that they did not have enough evidence to get a search warrant for the vehicle, his phone, his home, etc. Once the body was discovered to have 75+ stab wounds, and it just so happened to be found where he said he had gone for a drive to 'clear his head', it seems they immediately got search warrants and searched his home, and intercepted the van. I believe it was some 2 months later that KR was charged with her murder.

For me, it has been a rather big pile of circumstantial evidence (that I have read about, there's probably lots more that hasn't made it into the news). Circumstantial evidence has been described by the courts as being just as valuable/important as direct evidence. And the evidence throughout the trial is supposed to be weighed all together in their totality as a complete picture, not as separate points in themselves.

So far we have KR:

• having the status of 'ex', along with the discovery that the two had apparently been having sex during the months preceding JRN's murder and an admission from KR that he wanted to get back together with JRN, even though both he and she had moved on to new relationships with others, and then the discovery of JRN's body showing she suffered 75+ stab wounds (which might suggest this murder was done by someone with anger and emotional investment)
• in the midst of a custody battle/dispute with JRN (according to the Crown and at least one of the witnesses to date (that we have heard about) - I'm going to go with that the Crown has shown evidence to that effect even though we haven't heard about that evidence having been presented), with a court hearing scheduled for the morning after she disappeared
• admitting he was the one who had picked JRN up after her work shift that fateful evening, and police having found no evidence to date of her having been alive at any point after that point in time (footprint of life ceased)
• who just so happened to choose that evening to drive some 20-30 minutes away, out to Balzac to 'clear his head' after 'dropping her off at home', he has no alibi for the time immediately following her being 'dropped off', and JRN's housemates said she did not arrive home
• whose trek out to Balzac just so happened to turn out to be the same area where JRN's body was discovered weeks later
• telling officers they could have his phone when asked for it in order to verify his travels during that fateful evening, but then later told them he was unable to produce it for them as he had lost it
• telling his boss at the time that his phone had been confiscated by police, but meanwhile he was telling police a different story, as above
• returning to his boss, tools that were in his possession inside of the van during the time in question (which could almost equate with tampering with evidence?)
• taking the van to the scrapyard the day after JRN's body was found, via his mother, stepfather and grandmother
• changing his story to police a few times according to police reports
• apparently having custody and control of the van in which was discovered JRN's blood, evidence of a 'bloodletting event' and a 'botched cleanup'
• whose family members, instead of showing concern for the mother of the much loved child in their lives, made public online comments about JRN having issues with alcohol and custody of her children (why bash the murder victim, and especially when the victim was a loved one of the child whom they presumably cared about?)
• who, after sharing thousands of texts, loving endearments, intimacy, sex, and entertaining thoughts of reconciliation with the victim, sends no more texts after March 10th

Did I forget anything?

Could one guy really be so unlucky on a number of counts above?

What *haven't* we heard about?

Will the jury believe that big picture is enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[deugirtni]

It is except all the text messages presented as evidence were retrieved from JRNs iCloud and we don't know when her iCloud ceased uploads. But we also know KR claimed to have lost his cellphone so any texts not uploaded to JRNs iCloud would be lost.

Just my opinion but it appears there's weakness in the case because LE didn't take JRNs disappearance seriously at the onset. Maybe it was because of the somewhat sketchy area in Calgary where she lived or worked or maybe because there was some instability in her lifestyle or maybe only because the vast majority of missing persons reports end with the person being located. But I get the impression it was only when her body was found two months later by a road construction crew, that LE really began to a serious investigation. By that time evidence such as CCTV cameras proving or disproving KRs activities including evidence regarding the alleged "botched cleanup" or what other vehicle did he take to the court hearing, etc.

If I was a juror I would really want to hear testimony regarding the body discovery and if it could be determined that she was in the same location for the entire two months including soil sampling indicating blood loss. There's an arial photo somewhere showing the location to be very near the edge of the country road. That's the part that perplexes me. Why wasn't her body found at the location sooner? The fact that he made that disclosure of his drive to Balzac area to LE early on, only now after the fact, is being presented at evidence of his guilt.

"Two days after the accused gave his first statement to police, he made a "significant addition to his story," said Parker.......He said he drove out to Balzac. Baker then had the accused retrace the route he had taken that night......Baker also said in cross-examination that police used an investigative technique on Rubletz called a "stim," where information is released to the suspect in an effort to prompt a reaction that may lead to evidence."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...letz-murder-trial-police-interviews-1.4402009

ETA: so this "stim" to trick a witness into believing LE has evidence but then LE doesn't investigate any further? It appears to me the only evidence they hoped it would lead to was a confession.

LE accessed her icloud and cellphone provider records, however it was stated during the trial that police also had her iphone.

"Jurors at Rubletz's second-degree murder trial were presented the text messages retrieved from Newman's iPhone by Const. Ian Whiffen, who is with the Calgary Police Service's digital forensics team.
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. "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jessica-newman-kevin-rubletz-murder-trial-text-messages-1.4395962

 

[MistyWaters]

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.

May I ask how you can confidently state as fact what you wrote:

"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."

 

[MistyWaters]

All of that is rather irrelevant. This discussion arose because the Crown apparently was quoted saying the couple were in a custody dispute, but yet the accused stated publicly that he supported JRN's application for 50/50, wanted and needed her to have it, so therefore, where was the dispute, and as far as it has been reported, the Crown hasn't brought forth evidence to prove their statement that there *was* a custody dispute going on between the two. That is the only point that was being made. In speaking about the existence of a dispute, details would not necessarily have needed to be presented - something along the lines of, 'altho KR said he supported JRN's 50/50 application, court records proved differently, showing the couple were disputing custody/parenting arrangements, but a publication ban is in effect and we cannot report on the details'... or something. I believe that much was left out of the reporting on this trial, jmo, so personally, I am left wondering whether the Crown failed to prove their points, or whether certain points were proven, but simply weren't reported upon. It seems only the jury, and whoever else was at the trial in person every minute, would know for sure.

It might be irrelevant to you but it's not to me. It's an indication of why the Judge may have issued a Publication Ban on witness testimony involving the mutual child.

I'm not here to argue what can never be proven.

 

[deugirtni]

Originally Posted by deugirtni
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.

That's not quite true that the defence must call their own witnesses in order to offer any defence. During any trial the defence is given the opportunity to cross-examine Crown witnesses regarding their testimony. See the link in my post #637.

The defence can cross examine to their hearts' content, but the lawyer is not allowed to give evidence through his own words. What a lawyer says during a trial is not evidence. If the defence had evidence to exonerate the accused, why not present it?

 

[deugirtni]

May I ask how you can confidently state as fact what you wrote:

"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 not sure what you are questioning?

I have closely followed a few trials where there are reporters covering in person, tweeting and writing news stories. There are often times when reporters will tweet that they cannot report on what is going on at certain times as there are publication bans against certain things being reported. There have been preliminary hearings, court appearances, etc., where reporters state there is a pub ban in effect, in order to explain why they are not reporting on certain things.

It has been reported that the child cannot be named - so therefore, there must be a pub ban on his name. "In his opening address to a Court of Queen’s Bench jury Monday, Crown prosecutor Shane Parker said Kevin Rubletz murdered Newman during a custody battle over their shared son.
Parker said the on-again, off-again couple were supposed to be in court on March 11, 2015, to argue access over the boy, who can’t be named."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...wman-was-killed-in-crime-of-passion-jury-told

If a mother of an accused tried to hide evidence by taking the van (crime scene) to an auto wreckers on the day after a body was found, what reason would there be for having a pub ban on that testimony during a public murder trial? I'm pretty sure reporters could report on that without bringing the child's confidential legal status, if any, into it?

 

[MistyWaters]

Originally Posted by deugirtni
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.




The defence can cross examine to their hearts' content, but the lawyer is not allowed to give evidence through his own words. What a lawyer says during a trial is not evidence. If the defence had evidence to exonerate the accused, why not present it?

Nowhere did I or anyone suggest a lawyer is allowed to give evidence through his own words. The defence also has the opportunity to develop their theory gleaned from testimony during cross examination of prosecution witnesses.

Definition of cross examination:
"In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination (in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and Pakistan known as examination-in-chief) and may be followed by a redirect (re-examination in England, Scotland, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Pakistan).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-examination

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm not sure what you are questioning?

I have closely followed a few trials where there are reporters covering in person, tweeting and writing news stories. There are often times when reporters will tweet that they cannot report on what is going on at certain times as there are publication bans against certain things being reported. There have been preliminary hearings, court appearances, etc., where reporters state there is a pub ban in effect, in order to explain why they are not reporting on certain things.

It has been reported that the child cannot be named - so therefore, there must be a pub ban on his name. "In his opening address to a Court of Queen’s Bench jury Monday, Crown prosecutor Shane Parker said Kevin Rubletz murdered Newman during a custody battle over their shared son.
Parker said the on-again, off-again couple were supposed to be in court on March 11, 2015, to argue access over the boy, who can’t be named."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...wman-was-killed-in-crime-of-passion-jury-told

If a mother of an accused tried to hide evidence by taking the van (crime scene) to an auto wreckers on the day after a body was found, what reason would there be for having a pub ban on that testimony during a public murder trial? I'm pretty sure reporters could report on that without bringing the child's confidential legal status, if any, into it?

If the Court Judge issued a Publication Ban regarding the testimony of a witness because his or her testimony directly or indirectly related to circumstances involving Child Services intervention of a child who's still living, we're just not going to know because the media isn't going to inform us that a ban was even placed.

In this case, simply not naming the child would not ensure his privacy considering his parents are known.

My last comment on this.

 

[Jester980]

The reality of this trial is that there has been minimal attendance by media, and what they have reported is the highlights. There has been other testimony, it just hasn't been reported.

 

[MistyWaters]

"Jurors have yet to reach a verdict in the second-degree murder trial of Calgarian Kevin Rubletz.

The five-man, six-woman jury were given final legal instructions on the law Thursday morning before beginning deliberations in the case."
http://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/jury-deliberating-fate-of-murder-suspect-kevin-rubletz

 

[otto]

"A Calgary jury has found Kevin Rubletz guilty of second-degree murder in the stabbing death of his former girlfriend Jessica Newman.

Members of Newman's family shed tears as the verdict was read Thursday evening in a Calgary courtroom. Rubletz showed no outward emotion. "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-rubletz-verdict-1.4417352

 

[MistyWaters]

"A small smirk creased the face of Kevin Rubletz as a jury Thursday evening found him guilty of second-degree murder in the brutal stabbing death of his ex-girlfriend.

Relatives of Jessica Newman quietly wept in the courtroom gallery while Rubletz showed no signs of emotion as the jury forewoman read the verdict....

....The verdict was met with relief by Newman’s relatives, including her mom, Rhonda Stewart.

Ironically, she said, her daughter’s nature was such that she wouldn’t have held animosity towards Rubletz for what he did.

“She was very kind, she would probably forgive him, she was just that kind of person,” Stewart said, following the verdict.

“I probably won’t forgive him … I’m never going to be satisfied he’ll get what he deserves,” she said."

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local...letz/wcm/2d369998-2e24-4311-b20b-2c4c922dab68

 

[deugirtni]

It seems that otto's theory that the Crown should have reached higher in the charges levied against KR, may have been shared by some of the jury members, who were present for the presentation of all of the evidence.

"After the verdict, jurors were asked if they wished to make a recommendation on parole ineligibility for Rubletz, with seven suggesting an increase from the minimum 10 years to 15 years and one recommending the maximum 25.


A date for sentencing submissions will be set in January."

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local...letz/wcm/2d369998-2e24-4311-b20b-2c4c922dab68

 

[deugirtni]

Just random thoughts.

I would have been interested in hearing the judge's instructions to the jury before they started their deliberations.

It didn't take long for the jury to come to their unanimous verdict. "“Guilty,” juror No. 3 said, after the five men and six woman deciding Rubletz’s fate reached a decision after eight hours of deliberation."

A 'smirk' is kind of an odd reaction? "A small smirk creased the face of Kevin Rubletz as a jury Thursday evening found him guilty of second-degree murder in the brutal stabbing death of his ex-girlfriend."

I wonder if KR's mother and stepfather were present for the verdict, after having been put forward by the defence as the possible killers (or present during the trial, for that matter)?

Sad story all around.