IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #40

[MassGuy]

They cannot supply a lawyer other than a private lawyer because the lawyer must be able to work in the state. Mexico does pay for it, I don't know
if they get the state to reimburse them or not.
How Mexico Saves Its Citizens from the Death Penalty in the U.S.
Here is where Time states Mexico is funding a defense of one of their citizens in US
Mexico Presses U.S to Stay Execution of One of Its Citizens

These articles address protecting Mexican citizens from the death penalty. This is not a death penalty case however.

 

[MyBelle]

It's legal in all 50 states to ask for an attorney before speaking to LE for any reason!

I'm still making a cultural milieu argument (for invalidating his Miranda) that CR was incapable of understanding (or truly accepting the fact that) the Miranda explanation of his right to an attorney or to not self-incriminate was true, or applied to him. In his home country, with a crime of this severity, you tell the police what they want to hear, or things will go very badly for you. The only thing LE wanted to know was the truth, and he told them that, or some version of it, because (no matter how nice they were to him) he truly believed that the rubber hoses (or a phone book and a nightstick) would be produced when the Federalies (he had an ICE interpreter and FBI were involved in this case) questioning him lost their patience. I grew up in a New Orleans LE family back in the day. I've heard stories of how some officers would claim bragging rights for making a suspect void on themselves during questioning, and the enhanced interagation techniques used to reach that point.

The bottom line is that CR lead them to the body because he was truly afraid that LE would harm or kill him if he did not, because that's the way it's done back home!

Not necessarily a defense attorney's worst dream, but maybe the best if being unable to ask for an attorney invalidates the Miranda based questioning. About the only thing left in play would be the body (because of inevitable discovery in the Fall), and the wealth of forensics the State now has.

We really don't know why CR led LE to Mollie's body but if he was properly Mirandized there is no way to "invalidate" it.

I have no doubt, with the number of LE agencies involved in this case, that procedure was properly followed and that Barney Fife was nowhere in the room.

 

[Confusion]

I did a search with the header, took away 39, and added "40" because I did not see a link for it.

I just went to recent threads and clicked on it there.

Since I get tired of the same old arguments after a dozen pages or so, I thought I'd throw another wrench into the works...
I've been half expecting him to start "regaining" his memories as he comes up with some kind of explanation other than confessing to murder. For instance (this is only a possible story he could tell, not something I actually believe): he was talking to MT and she threatened to call LE, and he lost his temper and started screaming at her about what she'd do to his life if she did that, that he was just trying to be friendly and she could end up ruining the lives of many men/families, etc. While this is going on, another car stops (someone he doesn't know of course, but maybe she does) and pretends to protect MT, but instead, he possibly rapes her, but definitely stabs her repeatedly. He pops the trunk on CR's car and throws her in there, then he takes off. CR chases after him but loses him down the road a bit, and starts calming down. Because this "guy" also threw her earbud into the car with the keys, he noticed the earbud on his lap. At that point, he remembered her in the trunk and got rid of her body because he knew nobody would believe his story (for obvious reasons, the main one being that it never happened!)

As ridiculous as that story is, would that be enough to cause reasonable doubt in anybody if no DNA is found? Is there anything he could come up with to explain what happened during his "memory lapse" that actually could make at east one person on the jury have reasonable doubt? MOO, obviously, but my last question is a somewhat serious one.

 

[KaaBoom]

MOO is the family certainly hoped she was alive but LE probably told them privately that based on the information they had it was unlikely. Otherwise why do all of those massive searches in the fields and parks if true thought was kidnapping. Regardless as family I think you HAVE to think or hope alive or else you stop searching....JMO

Searching the fields was process of elimination. If they didn't find her body, then there would be a good chance she was still alive. They can investigate both possibilities at the same time. Until they found her body there was a chance she was still alive. It would have been irresponsible of them to automatically conclude that she was dead, without evidence, and I doubt they did that.

 

[MassGuy]

We really don't know why CR led LE to Mollie's body but if he was properly Mirandized there is no way to "invalidate" it.

I have no doubt, with the number of LE agencies involved in this case, that procedure was properly followed and that Barney Fife was nowhere in the room.

Exactly. And let’s just say the confession was thrown out, along with the fact that he led police to her body. Law enforcement would still have the video that put his vehicle in the area, Mollie’s DNA in the trunk (likely), digital evidence, and everything else. This case doesn’t hinge on the confession.

 

[cody22]

That's the beauty of this community. We have differing opinions, thoughts, life experience etc. etc. If we all agreed on every single piece of info how would we expand our horizons.

Well said.

 

[Mercedes]

Hopefully someone with more law experience can clarify this but how are you innocent until proven guilty when you’ve confessed to a crime? He confessed to killing her, that makes him a killer.

Well, sometimes confessions are thrown out because they are coerced or involuntary, etc. I could see him asserting that he did not understand English very well and he misunderstood what he confessed to. Also, I don’t believe he confessed to killing Mollie. Rather he said that he blocked or blacked out that part of the incident.
(However, he did confess to following her and knowing where her body was hidden. Confession or not, he is toast. IMO)

 

[Al Hoffman]

CCTV cameras haven't shown to reduce crime. The end of the CCTV era?
They're not usually "in your face" so people don't even think about them. Even if they do see a camera, it's not like the camera has a gun so the camera can't prevent the crime. If they rob a store they're already taking their chances against a clerk who can get a good look at him, better than a camera.

While a CCTV may not reduce the commission of crimes, I'de love to see the stats for apprehensions, arrests or convictions. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but a security cam gives you a picture you put on the MSM newsfeed.

Look at the impact that body cams, security cams and the ubiquitous smartphone cams have had on police involved shootings. Not only has this video changed the narrative, it now provides a narrative after the fact!

Also what about web connected cams that allow you to speak to the subjects on camera, like the Ring doorbell and peripherals?

 

[Confusion]

he confessed to stalking her, confronting her, becoming angry when she threatened to call the police, knowing she was in the trunk, pulling her out, stabbing her, leaving her dead in a cornfield. Or he may have stabbed her before putting her in the trunk.

Do you have a link to him confessing to stabbing her, or is that your opinion?

 

[MassGuy]

While a CCTV may not reduce the commission of crimes, I'de love to see the stats for apprehensions, arrests or convictions. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but a security cam gives you a picture you put on the MSM newsfeed.

Look at the impact that body cams, security cams and the ubiquitous smartphone cams have had on police involved shootings. Not only has this video changed the narrative, it now provides a narrative after the fact!

Also what about web connected cams that allow you to speak to the subjects on camera, like the Ring doorbell and peripherals?

Yup. And don’t forget facial recognition technology that can identify known offenders from cctv footage. Amazon has a division that provides these services to law enforcement.

 

[nightski]

Is there a possibility that the defense lawyers for CR could say that he was not driving that vehicle the night it was caught on tape? Do they have it verified that CR was actually driving? The vehicle is not registered in his name and maybe he is not the only one driving it. Maybe someone else was and did the "deed" and left the body in the trunk. The earpiece was thrown in the front seat and the next time CR drove it he found the earpiece and looked in the trunk and had to get rid of it, thinking he would be charged with the crime. As he was questioned with point A....B...and C he just made up the story and he actually blacked out at viewing the body, but knew he had to get rid of it.

 

[1987]

The use of "CCTV", or more current, "video surveillance", is not only about attempting to gain a direct view of a perp's face (which we know is not always successful), it also is for gathering data on overall physical appearance, gait, height, physical mannerisms and environmental and situational interactions.

At least some "VHS" or similar tape-based systems remain in use but I have no statistics. Current digital camera technology far surpasses VHS/Beta in video quality and usable coverage. But not all digital cameras offer those improvements, especially older, first and second generation devices. Current resolution (total pixels, i.e., 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12+ MP) has increased dramatically but many older digital devices remain in place and are 'functional' and owners are reluctant to replace something that "works".

Higher resolution (5+ MP) provide more detail, which enables better zoom quality: the more detail contained within an image the better the zoom quality.

Lens choice, camera placement and aim also are critical factors to consider. Some cameras come with a fixed lens (not interchangeable), more expensive cameras offer a choice of lenses, such as narrow-angle or wide-angle, power zoom, etc. Some cameras also include pan/tilt/zoom capability in a consolidated unit while other cameras without those features may be mounted on pan/tilt mechanisms to achieve the same coverage and if the camera accepts interchangeable lenses a zoom model might be available.

If LE releases surveillance video and it appears 'blurry' it is usually a result of zooming of a lower-resolution image. Zooming the image recorded from higher resolution cameras provides a less 'blurry' result, with the highest pixel models providing excellent clarity.

The lowest resolution digital camera you purchase should be at least 2 MP (1920 x 1080) but I prefer 8+ MP (3840 x 2160 and better) for best quality and coverage capability. Prices are coming down (little by little and only to a point since 'technology pricing' tends to linger with certain devices), and recording devices and software currently available provide more features that meet and exceed most user's needs. You may use a computer or dedicated device, either of which must be powered on and functional 24/7/365 for true, total surveillance.

I agree with most all of this, but security cameras are not measured in MP. it is TVL. IR also refers to the infrared used in modern security cameras that helps them see in the dark.

 

[agilbe]

That is assuming, they did not have a translator present when he was brought in. He went voluntarily remember. With the FBI involved, I highly doubt they didn't go through the proper protocol.

You can bet LE was crossing their t's and dotting their i's twice. Nobody wants anything to derail this case.

 

[Kapua]

JMO
I think he is going to prison for life no matter how many different ways the defense is going to try to twist this.

Because of a few main things.

First and foremost he approached her and not the other way around. That is huge in this case. From what we know so far she was minding her own business jogging alone and he approached her. So it will be determined that he was the aggressor in this case. That is a huge distinction.

Secondly we already know she suffered sharp object injuries to her body. That is huge in this case too. Because he was the one that approached her, confronted her, and since he already admitted to placing her in a spot and covering her with corn and since LE found her dead there then it will be obvious to a jury that he and he alone must have killed her. Unless other evidence or confessions come up then it has to be him and the jury is not dumb. They will not believe that some other stranger or a UFO or something came along and killed her. Video puts him near her at the beginning and his own confession puts him near her at the end.
This is as clear cut a case as the prosecution can hope for.

And finally it is my expectation that the autopsy will provide more damning evidence that we dont know about yet. Once the autopsy gives even more evidence about her wounds or even worse things that he may have done then it will be a done deal. Even if he didnt rape her the autopsy will provide details about the type of weapon that did the sharp force injuries which will limit the weapon to something like a knife. This will be huge for the jury.

No matter what his lame excuses will be about blacking out or whatever it wont matter one bit because he was the aggressor, he confronted her, he killed her, and he put her body somewhere.

It wont matter if she called him every bad name in the book or threatened to call every FBI agent in the phone book. You cannot kill someone for words they say to you. You can only legally kill someone if they threaten your own life and the evidence will clearly show he was the agreessor and the only one fearing for their life was poor MT.

I totally agree. The trial will be infuriating to many because the defense will try everything to introduce "reasonable doubt", but with a defendant who led police to the victim, this case is very clear cut. And he will receive the maximum sentence. IMHO.

 

[KaaBoom]

He must be a defence lawyers worst nightmare if he waived the right to speak to an attorney.

But now I wonder, in Iowa is it a legal right to seek legal advice prior to being questioned by LE?

Yes, it is.

Miranda warning - Wikipedia

 

[Al Hoffman]

CCTV cameras haven't shown to reduce crime. The end of the CCTV era?
They're not usually "in your face" so people don't even think about them. Even if they do see a camera, it's not like the camera has a gun so the camera can't prevent the crime. If they rob a store they're already taking their chances against a clerk who can get a good look at him, better than a camera.

While a CCTV may not reduce the commission of crimes, I'de love to see the stats for apprehensions, arrests or convictions. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but a security cam gives you a picture you put on the MSM newsfeed.

Look at the impact that body cams, security cams and the ubiquitous smartphone cams have had on police involved shootings. Not only has this video changed the narrative, it now provides a narrative after the fact!

Also what about web connected cams that allow you to speak to the subjects on camera, like the Ring doorbell and peripherals?

 

[Hatfield]

I just went to recent threads and clicked on it there.

Since I get tired of the same old arguments after a dozen pages or so, I thought I'd throw another wrench into the works...
I've been half expecting him to start "regaining" his memories as he comes up with some kind of explanation other than confessing to murder. For instance (this is only a possible story he could tell, not something I actually believe): he was talking to MT and she threatened to call LE, and he lost his temper and started screaming at her about what she'd do to his life if she did that, that he was just trying to be friendly and she could end up ruining the lives of many men/families, etc. While this is going on, another car stops (someone he doesn't know of course, but maybe she does) and pretends to protect MT, but instead, he possibly rapes her, but definitely stabs her repeatedly. He pops the trunk on CR's car and throws her in there, then he takes off. CR chases after him but loses him down the road a bit, and starts calming down. Because this "guy" also threw her earbud into the car with the keys, he noticed the earbud on his lap. At that point, he remembered her in the trunk and got rid of her body because he knew nobody would believe his story (for obvious reasons, the main one being that it never happened!)

As ridiculous as that story is, would that be enough to cause reasonable doubt in anybody if no DNA is found? Is there anything he could come up with to explain what happened during his "memory lapse" that actually could make at east one person on the jury have reasonable doubt? MOO, obviously, but my last question is a somewhat serious one.

JMO
That was pretty creative

I think the answer is a word in your question:
Would that be enough to cause reasonable doubt?

The word is "reasonable"

Juries always have to choose whether to believe a witness when they are called to the stand to testify. If he gets up on the stand (which I doubt he will) and if he testifies then the jury will have a choice to believe whatever statements he makes or not to believe him. Juries make this choice for any witness. They ask themselves if the person is credible and if what they are hearing is the truth.

And one thing that a defendant always has going against them in a trial is this.
Of all the witnesses being called in a jury trial. The one single witness which has the most motive to lie is the defendant themselves and juries know this. They will carefully consider whatever he has to say but they will always be asking themselves is it "reasonable" to believe it happened the way he is saying it happened.

 

[ACG2x]

Is there a possibility that the defense lawyers for CR could say that he was not driving that vehicle the night it was caught on tape? Do they have it verified that CR was actually driving? The vehicle is not registered in his name and maybe he is not the only one driving it. Maybe someone else was and did the "deed" and left the body in the trunk. The earpiece was thrown in the front seat and the next time CR drove it he found the earpiece and looked in the trunk and had to get rid of it, thinking he would be charged with the crime. As he was questioned with point A....B...and C he just made up the story and he actually blacked out at viewing the body, but knew he had to get rid of it.

I actually hope the defense would try that strategy because it requires so many mental gymnastics and hoops to actually get there a jury would laugh at it. Going that route would be a great way to guarantee a murder one conviction for the killer and life w/ no parole.

My guess is that they'll try to say that he never intended to harm Mollie and drove around her so much because he liked her and wanted to befriend/get to know her better and when he approached her to try, her first reaction was to threaten to call the police when he in fact meant no harm. This made the killer mad and in a flash of rage he accidentally killed Mollie. He then panicked and dumped her body and has felt awful and guilty about it since but has lived in fear because he knows he's an illegal alien and is deathly afraid of what the US government would do to him if they found out the illegal immigrant murdered the all-American popular well-known white girl.

Telling it like that disgusts me but I'm thinking like a defense attorney here. The goal here is to get the killer a sentence of something other than life without parole. If I were his lawyer, I would consider anything less than a max sentence a victory. Even life with possibility of parole in like 25-30.

 

[Jealoushe]

I think that's what I have in my head, too...she runs by, then a short time later the car goes by. But it isn't clear from the PC.

They had said the car circled a few times.

 

[Al Hoffman]

Wrong.

Mollie Tibbetts investigation: Chevy Malibu seen in surveillance video not registered to suspect Rivera, source says

Bazanga!!!!!