Case overview
Nona Dirksmeyer, a 19-year-old college student, was found beaten to death in her Russellville, Arkansas apartment on December 15, 2005. Her boyfriend, Kevin Jones, discovered her body and became the primary suspect, facing two separate murder trials over the next six years. Both juries acquitted him, leaving the case without a conviction and the central questions unresolved.
The last confirmed movements
Nona Dirksmeyer was last seen alive on the evening of December 14, 2005. She had attended classes at Arkansas Tech University earlier that day and returned to her off-campus apartment in Russellville. Investigators determined she was alone that night. Her boyfriend, Kevin Jones, was in another city visiting family and was not expected back until the following day.
On the morning of December 15, Jones arrived at her apartment and found the door unlocked. Inside, he discovered Nona’s body in the living room. She had been beaten with a blunt object. The scene showed signs of a violent struggle, and investigators noted that her clothing had been partially removed. There was no evidence of forced entry.
Jones called 911. Responding officers found him outside the apartment in distress. He became a focus of the investigation almost immediately.
The evidence that shaped the investigation
Forensic investigators recovered multiple pieces of physical evidence from the apartment. A broken lamp near the body was believed to be the murder weapon. Blood spatter patterns indicated the attack occurred where Nona was found. Her shoes had been removed and placed near the body in a way investigators described as unusual.
DNA evidence collected from Nona’s body and clothing revealed the presence of male DNA that did not match Kevin Jones. The source of that DNA became a central point of contention throughout the case.
Investigators also recovered a condom wrapper near the scene. Nona’s autopsy showed no evidence of sexual assault, but the presence of the wrapper raised questions about what occurred in the hours before her death.
A palm print was lifted from a wall inside the apartment. Initial analysis suggested the print did not belong to Jones. However, later forensic testimony disputed that conclusion, and the print was never definitively matched to another individual.
Why the boyfriend became the suspect
Kevin Jones was 23 at the time of the murder and had been dating Nona for several months. Investigators questioned him multiple times in the days following her death. Jones provided a detailed account of his whereabouts on December 14 and maintained he was not in Russellville that night.
Prosecutors argued that Jones had both motive and opportunity. They pointed to testimony suggesting the couple’s relationship had been strained. Witnesses described arguments between the two in the weeks before the murder. Investigators also noted that Jones was the person who discovered the body, a fact that often draws scrutiny in homicide cases.
Phone records placed Jones in the area where he said he was staying the night before the murder. Prosecutors argued the timeline allowed him to return to Russellville, commit the crime, and leave before reporting the body the next morning.
In March 2006, Jones was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. He was held without bond as the case moved toward trial.
The first trial and the jury’s decision
Kevin Jones’s first trial began in October 2007, nearly two years after Nona’s death. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and the argument that Jones was the only person with clear access to the apartment and motive to harm Nona.
The defense challenged the forensic evidence, particularly the DNA findings. Defense attorneys argued that the unidentified male DNA found on Nona’s body pointed to another suspect. They also questioned the reliability of the palm print analysis and highlighted inconsistencies in the state’s timeline.
Testimony from forensic experts dominated the trial. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting Jones staged the scene to appear as though an intruder had attacked Nona. The defense countered with testimony that the evidence was inconclusive and that investigators had failed to pursue other leads.
After deliberating for several days, the jury acquitted Jones. Jurors later told reporters they were not convinced the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Several cited the unidentified DNA as a significant factor in their decision.
The second prosecution and what changed
In 2010, prosecutors refiled charges against Kevin Jones. The decision to pursue a second trial was based on new forensic analysis and a revised interpretation of the evidence. Arkansas law permits retrial after an acquittal if the case is refiled under different legal grounds, though this move drew criticism from Jones’s legal team.
The second trial began in 2011. Prosecutors presented much of the same evidence but emphasized different aspects of the forensic record. A new expert testified that the palm print found in the apartment was consistent with Jones’s hand, contradicting earlier testimony that had excluded him as the source.
The defense again focused on the unidentified DNA. Attorneys argued that the state’s case rested on interpretation rather than definitive proof. They also highlighted the lack of physical evidence directly tying Jones to the murder weapon or the crime scene in a way that excluded other possibilities.
The jury deliberated for three days before returning a not guilty verdict. Jurors indicated they were not convinced the prosecution had met its burden of proof. Jones was released, and the case remained officially unsolved.
The unidentified DNA and other theories
The male DNA recovered from Nona’s body was never matched to any individual in law enforcement databases. Defense attorneys argued throughout both trials that this evidence pointed to an unknown assailant. Prosecutors contended the DNA could have been transferred through secondary contact and did not necessarily indicate the presence of another person during the attack.
Investigators interviewed multiple individuals in the weeks following the murder, including Nona’s classmates, coworkers, and acquaintances. No other suspect was publicly identified, and no arrests were made outside of Kevin Jones.
Some observers questioned whether the investigation focused too narrowly on Jones from the outset. Others pointed to the absence of forced entry and argued it suggested Nona knew her attacker. The case file remains open, but no new developments have been reported in more than a decade.
Where the case stands now
Kevin Jones has not been charged with any crime related to Nona Dirksmeyer’s death since his 2011 acquittal. He has largely stayed out of public view. The Russellville Police Department has not announced any active investigative efforts in recent years, and the case is classified as unsolved.
Nona’s family has spoken publicly about their frustration with the outcome of both trials. They have maintained that the person responsible for her death has not been held accountable. Advocates for Jones have argued that he was wrongfully targeted and that the focus on him prevented investigators from pursuing other leads.
The case remains one of the most scrutinized homicide investigations in Arkansas in the past two decades. The combination of disputed forensic evidence, two separate trials, and the presence of unidentified DNA has kept the case in public discussion among those who follow unresolved criminal cases.
Where to look next
- Documentary: “Unmasking a Killer” (Investigation Discovery)
- Book: “The Innocent Man” by John Grisham
- Podcast: “True Crime Garage”
