(Note: By not commenting on the article itself, I don't want to appear dismissive of an interesting insight. I just haven't got the brain power after my day so far to think of anything interesting to say about it.)

I'm always intrigued by tidbits of description thrown in and *why* they were thrown in. In your quick summary of fact, I assume you drew on other sources. You mention that she was a newlywed. I assume that this is because that's how she was described in other sources. It makes me wonder why that's relevant to understanding the case. Would it be different if she was unmarried or had been married a long time?