Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 #13

[YiYa]

I posted the call logs for the 23rd and 24th for the sheriffs office. I believe we can discuss them because they come directly from LE.

If this is not okay, please take it down.

So, I was looking at the one on the 18th fand someone did call law enforcement to report something suspicious at 7:41 pm. (19:41). When I checked the address online, it looks like it's in Montezuma, right by a body of water that is next to a park/wooded area. I thought this was interesting. It would have still been daylight at this time, so I wonder what would make someone suspicious. It's really just something that stuck out to me and something that I wonder if it will turn out to be significant. Most likely not though.

Here are screenshots of the call log and the map where I believe the address to be in relation to Brooklyn.

 

[Purplepixii]

If you have a legitimate tip please contact LE immediately. If you are unclear, please ask a Moderator to help you figure out the next best step.

If only it were a credible tip, but it’s just speculation at this time. However I think @mnnative & @JoJoJo and I are on the same page. Just need something official from LE/MSM. JMO.

 

[kay74]

This is so spot on. Anyone who has participated in a search knows you can literally walk right past remains and not see them.

That's why dogs should be used.

 

[kkdj]

He allowed them to search his property, to include the inside, as well as take pictures. He also allowed LE to take his phone overnight, so the data could be downloaded. He did this without forcing police to get a warrant. So he was cooperative up until his polygraph refusal.

Do you think that is odd? I mean if I thought I was under suspicion and didn't take her I would take the poly. But this guy might have other things going on that would cause him to be nervous about a poly. However, I think the examiner goes over a list of what he/she is going to ask prior to administering the test. If that's the case and he has nothing to hide that should give him some ease. Plus everyone knows that a lawyer will almost always advice against taking one.

 

[Whiteorchids]

The farm did not currently have pigs. Also, polygraphs are not admissible in Iowa courts. They do little more than to sway the opinion of people (courtrooms, public, etc), as they are not solid evidence. This is the same case for reading body language.

I feel like a polygraph test is something of a catch-22, much like the right to remain silent. For example, there have been many times that defendants have used this right, and then it has been brought up in court that the defendant chose not to speak on the matter, so any reasonable person would assume guilt (though lawyers are not allowed to say this word-for-word, they can imply it). However, a person may choose to not stay silent and say something that can accidentally twist their words or make them seem guilty, or (as in many cases) implicate themselves with another crime, no matter how small. The defendant is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, in a way.

So back to the polygraphs, people are going to assume that refusing one is admitting guilt. However, polygraphs just work off physiological reactions. I know if I were to be interviewed for a crime, whether I did it or not, my blood pressure/respiration/etc would certainly sky rocket. I can not even go to my doctor for my annual check up without that happening! Polygraphs have absolutely no bearing on anything except opinions, or possibly urging a defendant with little knowledge to admit to something/accept a deal in exchange for info.

But what's to say with all the pig farms around there he could have went into one of them sometime late night or early morning to dispose her body?

 

[kay74]

Why does no one mention the fact that someone found out she was staying in that house alone?! Her boyfriend could have told multiple people or even her mother. Someone could have gone there and assaulted her!

 

[PaulR]

Very strange that cameras were not operational

What is the source (MSM, LE) that the cameras were not operational? Otherwise this is just rumor and not allowed.

 

[Marie224]

That would be totally unconstitutional, and unprecedented.

I am well aware of the 4th amendment to the constitution and when/why it was created and how it applies to current times. I’ve actually excesized the right, twice in my life.

My comment was far reaching but so were all the others.

 

[mnnative]

I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. WC ends up much wealthier in the near future. My guess is that they are grilling him hard, not because they suspect that he committed a crime but because they suspect that he may know who did.

Could be totally off base of course since this is all just complete speculation as we await more detail on the case.

 

[Soul125]

I have a question that has probably been asked before so please forgive me if so. Was the house she was staying in in close enough proximity to someone that they would have heard her scream during the night? I have seen a video of her house in the media and it looked to be pretty much secluded. I like privacy, but I wouldn't want to live alone a farm road because no one would be around to help or call for help in case of trouble. Witnesses are very important. If no one is around to see or hear anything it can be difficult to find out what happened.

 

[Deleted member 227095]

But what's to say with all the pig farms around there he could have went into one of them sometime late night or early morning to dispose her body?

The perp coul

Replying to the question above about federal resources: I don't think it is unusual at all that the FBI got involved. It usually depends on the resources and experience of the local LE. If this happened in a jurisdiction where local LE has the experience and resources to properly handle a case like this - say NYPD - the FBI may not get involved right away. Local LE can request help from the FBI if they either do not have experience handling these types of cases or they do not have the equipment or man-power to handle a search of this size. There are guidelines about when federal agencies get involved, but the local branches also have discretion to help. The case may ultimately be handed back to local LE and the state prosecutors for prosecution if there are no federal crimes, but when there's a missing person you can request help from available agencies.

Yes, but in this case local LE waited 6 days to call in outsiders? Why? The town of Brooklyn HAS NO POLICE FORCE and pays the County for LE assistance. Something doesn't add up here IMO.

 

[Whiteorchids]

The farm did not currently have pigs. Also, polygraphs are not admissible in Iowa courts. They do little more than to sway the opinion of people (courtrooms, public, etc), as they are not solid evidence. This is the same case for reading body language.

I feel like a polygraph test is something of a catch-22, much like the right to remain silent. For example, there have been many times that defendants have used this right, and then it has been brought up in court that the defendant chose not to speak on the matter, so any reasonable person would assume guilt (though lawyers are not allowed to say this word-for-word, they can imply it). However, a person may choose to not stay silent and say something that can accidentally twist their words or make them seem guilty, or (as in many cases) implicate themselves with another crime, no matter how small. The defendant is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, in a way.

So back to the polygraphs, people are going to assume that refusing one is admitting guilt. However, polygraphs just work off physiological reactions. I know if I were to be interviewed for a crime, whether I did it or not, my blood pressure/respiration/etc would certainly sky rocket. I can not even go to my doctor for my annual check up without that happening! Polygraphs have absolutely no bearing on anything except opinions, or possibly urging a defendant with little knowledge to admit to something/accept a deal in exchange for info.

They can also eliminate you as a suspect. I supposed if they asked if he had ever watched saw her lately or attracted to Mollie and was true he would have to say yes and be truthful. I think he wants to avoid that and other questions. If I was completely innocent I would definitely jump for the opportunity to try proving it. I think they got something on this guy and that's why they asked if he would take one.

 

[HastingsChi]

The media coverage is so misleading -- the headlines scream one thing and buried within the article is the factual nugget which tends to disprove the insinuation of the headline; case in point:

Farmer questioned about missing college student thinks ‘some guy has her’

An FBI agent spoke to Wayne Cheney for about 10 minutes on Friday afternoon, Fox News reported.

While the media is presenting Cheney as the prime suspect, the FBI's actions do not support this since the FBI generally spends more time than it takes to grill a burger when they grill a key suspect...

 

[FL Mom]

I have been following along and reading these posts for awhile now. All of this talk about search warrants has me wondering about something. So we have been told that WC gave permission for a search without a warrant. Would anything they find without a search warrant be allowed in a trial? I read an article stating that
FBI served a search warrant to go in the house Mollie was staying when she disappeared. I'm not bringing this up to go down the rabbit hole of suspicion against those who live in the home. I'm wondering if those with more knowledge about search warrants can explain if they would need one if the owners gave consent in the event that a crime occurred in the home for trial purposes? Basically, was having to serve a search warrant to search the home a way to cover their bases in the event they find something of evidentiary value?
Boyfriend of missing Iowa woman vows to 'never stop' searching

 

[MassGuy]

Do you think that is odd? I mean if I thought I was under suspicion and didn't take her I would take the poly. But this guy might have other things going on that would cause him to be nervous about a poly. However, I think the examiner goes over a list of what he/she is going to ask prior to administering the test. If that's the case and he has nothing to hide that should give him some ease. Plus everyone knows that a lawyer will almost always advice against taking one.

I don't find his refusal odd. He has previous contact with LE, and potentially has been given a polygraph before, so may just not trust law enforcement or the test. Its impossible to know his motivations for not taking it, but there are plenty of reasons what are innocent explanations as to why.

 

[PaulR]

They can also eliminate you as a suspect. I supposed if they asked if he had ever watched saw her lately or attracted to Mollie and was true he would have to say yes and be truthful. I think he wants to avoid that and other questions. If I was completely innocent I would definitely jump for the opportunity to try proving it. I think they got something on this guy and that's why they asked if he would take one.

Passing a polygraph doesn't prove you are innocent. See: Aldrich Ames (CIA agent who passed the polygraph, and also passed documents to the Soviets), Ana Belen Montes (DIA analyst who also passed both the polygraph and documents to the Cubans), Gary Ridgway (the Green River Killer who passed his polygraph), etc.

 

[PommyMommy]

I guess my question is... Did WC actually give the permission for the warrantless search, as the actual owner of the property..? Or, is he living on a property owned by someone else, and that person gave the okay to LE for the search..?
The reason for the question is... WC allowing a search gives him a better look. If he wasn't the owner of the property, and was given no choice but to allow the search, that changes the way I would view his "cooperation" to this point in time.

He gave permission for them to search the property which he owns, which is not a pig farm or a hog farm, but near one. He previously owned a pig farm.

 

[GussiedCanoodler]

They can also eliminate you as a suspect.

This is not how it works, as they could just determine the suspect 'beat' the test, or come to some other conclusion. Additionally, there have been many cases of people passing polygraph tests who were indeed guilty of the crimes they were accused of.

 

[HastingsChi]

Do you think that is odd? I mean if I thought I was under suspicion and didn't take her I would take the poly. But this guy might have other things going on that would cause him to be nervous about a poly. However, I think the examiner goes over a list of what he/she is going to ask prior to administering the test. If that's the case and he has nothing to hide that should give him some ease. Plus everyone knows that a lawyer will almost always advice against taking one.

Not really. Polygraphs are inadmissible in Court.
Maybe Cheney watched the episode of Penn & Teller's BS about lie detector tests and how unreliable and flawed they are.
With that knowledge, I probably wouldn't take one either.

However I think that his actions that you listed speak volumes -- he bent over backwards to let them search everything.
I wouldn't read too much into his refusal to take a polygraph.

 

[mnnative]

So we have been told that WC gave permission for a search without a warrant. Would anything they find without a search warrant be allowed in a trial?

Yes it would be admissible in court since they were granted permission so it wasn't an illegal search.

Now, if they found a bag of weed they wouldn't be able to charge him with it since it wouldn't have fallen within the scope of the purpose for the search.