Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 #24

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would be in a ball in a corner somewhere. I don't know how someone can live with the uncertainty of whether your child is alive or not. Poor Mom is probably mentally, physically, and emotionally exhausted. Dad and BF are very strong on the outside - who knows how they are privately. I so hope this has a good ending for them, but I don't see that happening. As hard as they have worked, I'm afraid if they get bad news, they are going to be affected harder than most. They've invested so much of themselves in this. I just feel horrible for them.
I hope they can align themselves, if they haven’t already, with some positive, productive groups like Mark Klaas and Klaas Kids, etc.
 
(I suddenly got this weird optimistic feeling....maybe she is alive and being held by some sicko, Castro style...)
Food for thought: I don’t think somebody similar to Castro could be involved. If this were a planned abduction without a specific target there would be so many better opportunities in towns like Iowa City or even Grinnell. Going after somebody like Mollie in her hometown is a recipe for getting noticed and getting caught.
 
I am a runner and most runners like myself always take along our phones and our running watch (Garmin or fitbit)... just in case you trip and fall or need to call someone.

To me, based on your points.. it looks like the purse being at home but the phone gone, means she was abducted on the run. But then again, wasn't there a report that she did homework AFTER her run?

I believe they said she was doing homework in the evening, but they have never clarified specifically when. LE has never officially come out and said that she was doing homework after her run.
 
I just read this newspaper article from The Mercury News. The article is an interview with
RT.
://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/08/from-oakland-to-iowa-mollie-tibbetts-family-relies-on-two-communities-and-clings-to-hope/

  • The night she disappeared, Mollie texted her mom at 7:30 p.m., saying she was going for a runsomething she did most nights.

This first bullet point is troublesome for me, and the lack of clarity in the writing is one of the reasons we go round and round and round on what was meant/said.

In this instance, I don’t think the exact context really matters - yet there is potential confusion about what the ‘something she did most nights’ refers to. Does this ‘something’ refer to the run? To texting to her mom at 7:30 (about anything that happened during the day)? To the time of her run? Or, any combination of these options?

This is really a rhetorical question, as we have no way of knowing the intent of the writer. Yet, it is an indicator of why some of us can read/interpret words/statements one way, and others differently.
 
How easy it is to be stalked and not know it. Here’s my personal experience. I attend a group therapy that I drive an hour away for everyday. A guy showed up at my therapy group as I was pulling in he pulled up next to me & introduced himself. He said he knew me from living a few blocks away from where I live. He noticed that I drive everyday to the town 50 miles away & wanted to let me know how “pretty” I was and was curious if I’d be interested in going out for dinner sometime soon. It freaked me out that someone knew so much about me & I knew nothing about him. He has since left his business card on the windshield of my vehicle. It’s scaring me knowing that I’m being followed. He seems nice and all. But I have a problem with falling for people who seem nice and turn out to be not so nice..
That seems very strange that he followed you 50 miles away. I would actually report it just so there is some sort of an alert out there. I would tell him to leave me alone too. That's just weird.
 
I am a runner and most runners like myself always take along our phones and our running watch (Garmin or fitbit)... just in case you trip and fall or need to call someone.

To me, based on your points.. it looks like the purse being at home but the phone gone, means she was abducted on the run. But then again, wasn't there a report that she did homework AFTER her run?

According to this article Re: MT doing homework hasn't been confirmed or denied by LE. This allegation was made on Sat. July 28th here --> Mollie Tibbetts Case: What to Know About the Iowa College Student Missing for 3 Weeks
  • New evidence revealed Tibbetts was doing homework on her computer late into the evening July 18, loved ones told KCCI-TV. Authorities declined to release a specific time, saying it could hinder the investigation.
 
Really? Why? I think it looks beautiful and would visit there for sure!

I've only managed to watch the first of Sharon Needles' videos so far (Thank you for doing them, I'm going to watch the rest when I eat in a few) but I think the countryside looks beautiful. I live in a flat part of the UK and it has a kind of familiar feel (but on a much bigger scale) to me. I bet the stargazing is good out there with little light pollution?
 
This first bullet point is troublesome for me, and the lack of clarity in the writing is one of the reasons we go round and round and round on what was meant/said.

In this instance, I don’t think the exact context really matters - yet there is potential confusion about what the ‘something she did most nights’ refers to. Does this ‘something’ refer to the run? To texting to her mom at 7:30 (about anything that happened during the day)? To the time of her run? Or, any combination of these options?

This is really a rhetorical question, as we have no way of knowing the intent of the writer. Yet, it is an indicator of why some of us can read/interpret words/statements one way, and others differently.

I'm fairly certain the "something she did most nights" is in reference to the run.
 
So this has me thinking about the contacts. I wear disposable and have now for many years. All contact wearers in my family do as well. I am going to assume that maybe Mollie wears similar lenses. If her eyesight is bad without correction and I can't imagine any runner would run without them.

If I were missing and my husband wanted to find out if I was wearing my contacts or not, he would check my lens case that sits on my bathroom vanity on a glass soapdish. That is my routine and has been for many years. I'm wondering if that is what they meant when saying that her contacts were in the house. (I have a drawer where I keep my supply and I change those lens about once a month. I usually use a new case with every new pair. I do not sleep in them). If Mollie's lenses were in her daily cleaning case, then that is even more disturbing to me and makes me wonder if she was taken sometime after getting ready for bed and before getting ready in the morning.
I do the same and would not go anywhere without contacts or eyeglasses. On rare occasion, I might open a new box of lenses while an old pair is still in the case. I also have old glasses so maybe Mollie has an old pair for running?
 
I just ran WC’s name through the Iowa vine link (which locates offenders) and through the Bureau of prison’s inmate locator (for federal inmates) and neither list WC as being in custody, so I am assuming an arrest hasn’t been made.

That being said, I do not have high hopes for the press conference today. If anything, I unfortunately think they will announce this has become a recovery investigation due to evidence found and time lapsed. I have a strong feeling they will confirm the shirt at least, (If it is hers).
 
IMO, there is way too much thought being put into the glasses and contacts. But at the same time I understand there isn't much other information or speculation to really talk about. Whatever she was doing with whoever, she was probably able to see well enough with or without contacts or glasses for the amount of time that she planned to be away from the house.

I posted due to the fact that it was stated in an article that she did not see well without them. My vision is actually not all that bad and I could survive without mine in a crisis, but it would not be a good situation. I certainly would not go for a run or drive a car without them. Anyone who is dependent on corrective lenses would never go for a run without them, IMO. For me, it isn't about the amount of time but about what she planned to do and could she function without her vision. For that, I think it is relevant.
 
IMO, there is way too much thought being put into the glasses and contacts. But at the same time I understand there isn't much other information or speculation to really talk about. Whatever she was doing with whoever, she was probably able to see well enough with or without contacts or glasses for the amount of time that she planned to be away from the house.

I think that the speculation (no pun intended) about glasses/contacts is an attempt to determine where she was when things went wrong.

IF she is nearly helpless without vision correction, and IF all her glasses/contacts are accounted for, then it becomes likely, almost certain, that she was taken involuntarily from the house. (I don't think that's what happened, but it's a possible theory.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
2,149
Total visitors
2,265

Forum statistics

Threads
602,256
Messages
18,137,664
Members
231,282
Latest member
omnia
Back
Top