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

[Al Hoffman]

That's close to a confession.
The accused admitted to following Mollie and burying and concealing her body in the cornfield. Defense counsels will have their work cut out for them. IMHO, they will begin by arguing that the defendant was not apprised of (or did not understand his rights to 1) remain silent and 2) have an attorney present during questioning. I predict that the court will rule in favor of the prosecution on this point. Next, they will present an argument that he didn’t actually murder the victim – because he claimed to have “blacked/blocked out” that part of the crime. I hope the prosecution has recovered the murder weapon and/or the accused’s DNA. The state will need to be on its toes as well. It doesn’t appear as though the accused intends to enter a guilty plea, IMHO; otherwise, he would have allowed a public defender to represent him. There will be numerous delays and the trial will actually start in 2 years or so. I also predict a guilty verdict. We've all seen the odd not guilty cases, but this won't be one of them. MOO

18 months, won and done by the State! You buy the beer!

 

[MistyWaters]

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.

It was a creative scenario!

But I also think it’s a real stretch that someone has the ability to “block memory” of witnessing a violent crime to which they are merely an observer....and then go on to remember where they placed the body afterward.

 

[Copper]

Something to keep in mind about the confession. If CR really did confess out of fear of the police, why only give a half confession. Why not confess all if you're afraid of torture or summary execution? The same goes for the language barrier. CR understood what was happening enough to give a story to the police rather than a full confession.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

bbm

Could you say that again, please? So are you saying LE has the technology to perfect the image so they can get a clearer picture of him?

I did not touch on that subject, as my focus was strictly on the capability of the camera hardware. But since you mentioned it, I'll expound as best I can on what LE can and can not do regarding enhancement.

Various filtering techniques may be applied to both still and moving images. By filtering, I'm including sharpness enhancement, blurring, brightness, contrast, gamma, plus a multitude of techniques that involve overlaying an image over itself and applying additive, multiplicative, subtractive, dodging, burning (plus others) of luminance, color, edge enhancement, interpolation, etc.

Note that no technique may *add* missing information to an image, that 'fills in the blanks', other than for approximation or assumption of 'what should be there based on what surrounds it': this smooths the image rather than enhances clarity but can be useful.

Applying sharpness algorithms is the best technique and most common used to enhance clarity, but this has limits. Increasing sharpness detects pixel transitions and attempts to clarify the edge relative to surrounding pixels.

 

[TL4S]

I know this is off the topics we've been discussing, but I just read the affidavit statement again and a few things make me curious. I would love other's thoughts.

1) "The Defendant was able to use his phone to determine the route he traveled from Brooklyn."

• Did he have this information already on his phone from the night in question? Or did he simply look it up that day to show police.
  
• On 7/18, did he look up a route out of town on his phone at 8:28pm? Is that one possibility?

2) "The Defendant further described in the interview that he dragged Tibbetts on foot from his vehicle to a secluded location in a cornfield. Rivera described he put her over his shoulder and took her about 20 meters into the cornfield and he left her covered in some corn leaves and that he left her there, face up."

• So IMO, according to his claims, he dragged her from the car down the edge of the cornfield (as seen in previous pictures), but then had to carry her INTO the corn. That was fuzzy in my mind before.
• Nowhere in his statement does he actually say anything about her being dead. He only says he went to get her out of his trunk and saw blood on her head, so he took her into the cornfield. Maybe that's why he mentioned the "face up", to make it look like he thought she might still be alive?

 

[ChuckMaureen]

bbm

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.

That is *old* technology. TVL references "TV lines of resolution" in analog television. Today's digital cameras are measured in H x V pixels = total pixels.

 

[Confusion]

It was a creative scenario!

But I also think it’s a real stretch that someone has the ability to “block memory” of witnessing a violent crime to which they are merely an observer....and then go on to remember where they placed the body afterward.

I know that can be done. My grandmother (paternal) said she was amazed that I don't remember ever seeing my father lose his temper, because she knew I saw him beat my mother almost every night. I'm sure that at the moment it happened, I probably remembered well enough to function properly (and behave around my father) but blocking unpleasant things out is pretty easy when it's one of your main coping mechanisms. I'm not saying that any of that scenario happened, but I do believe it's possible to block out seeing something traumatic happen - and probably possible to remember cleaning up the mess afterwards (although I've never been one to clean up after anyone, even myself if I can help it!) MOO

 

[1987]

bbm



I did not touch on that subject, as my focus was strictly on the capability of the camera hardware. But since you mentioned it, I'll expound as best I can on what LE can and can not do regarding enhancement.

Various filtering techniques may be applied to both still and moving images. By filtering, I'm including sharpness enhancement, blurring, brightness, contrast, gamma, plus a multitude of techniques that involve overlaying an image over itself and applying additive, multiplicative, subtractive, dodging, burning (plus others) of luminance, color, edge enhancement, interpolation, etc.

Note that no technique may *add* missing information to an image, that 'fills in the blanks', other than for approximation or assumption of 'what should be there based on what surrounds it': this smooths the image rather than enhances clarity but can be useful.

Applying sharpness algorithms is the best technique and most common used to enhance clarity, but this has limits. Increasing sharpness detects pixel transitions and attempts to clarify the edge relative to surrounding pixels.

I understood but I think there may have been some confusion on why the images shown are blurred that led up to the asking about image enhancement. I think you were saying that the blur may be because it is a section that is zoomed in on that is blurred and then when watched on a even bigger screen it just makes the blur more?

 

[TL4S]

They had said the car circled a few times.

But was any one of those times after they saw MT jogging?

 

[cluciano63]

Hardly any murder trials I’ ve seen involve confessions. And nearly all suspects were convicted.

I feel 100% certain this case will provide enough direct and circumstantial evidence to overcome any doubts by a jury. Of course defence lawyers will turn into a carnival if they can, their job is to distract when the facts are against them. It will not work. I do think getting impartial jurors is a real stretch though...doubt that is what will end up on the panel. I don’t think it will be possible.
Jmo

 

[Charliegizmo49]

Something to keep in mind about the confession. If CR really did confess out of fear of the police, why only give a half confession. Why not confess all if you're afraid of torture or summary execution? The same goes for the language barrier. CR understood what was happening enough to give a story to the police rather than a full confession.

NOT ONE WORD OF THIS IS INTENDED TO BE, sound or reflect any racial bias whatsoever.

I think cultural aspects come into this. Latino men bare proud and macho. Confessing he did such a terrible thing might make him feel these emotions. I took control and taught her a lesson when she threatened me

However it was quite the opposite when it came to details of the probable assault and murder. He was embarrassed by this and came up with “ I blocked it out” to minimize his embarrassment to LE

 

[Al Hoffman]

I am assuming since she was stabbed there would be blood everywhere. Maybe inside the car also... there is so much to this story yet to be told.

How much bleeding depends on the type of sharp used (icepick, thin narrow blade, butcher knife, or was it sharp or dull, screwdriver, et al). Where on the body was the victim stabbed? Was the victim stabbed pre- or post-mortem; little to no bleed once the heart stops beating. Lots of variables. But, yeah, CR self-reported that MT had blood on her head when he opened the trunk. So hopefully forensics from trunk will be positive for MT's presence.

 

[Mom24]

Legally he is not guilty of anything until the trial is done or he pleads guilty.

And he didn't confess to killing her. In his confession he said he "blocked out" and then went to get her from his trunk.

I'm not saying I believe him. But he did not confess to killing her.

Legally he's guilty of:
residing illegally in a country
identity theft
insurance fraud
tax fraud
driving a vehicle without a valid license
falsifying information to an employer.
The murder charges are yet to be proven, but at the very least he's confessed to abuse of a corpse, desecration of a corpse and tampering with evidence.

 

[MyBelle]

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.

I don't know what a Defense team would hope to gain by introducing such a ridiculous SODDI theory.

 

[Confusion]

I know this is off the topics we've been discussing, but I just read the affidavit statement again and a few things make me curious. I would love other's thoughts.

1) "The Defendant was able to use his phone to determine the route he traveled from Brooklyn."

• Did he have this information already on his phone from the night in question? Or did he simply look it up that day to show police.
  
• On 7/18, did he look up a route out of town on his phone at 8:28pm? Is that one possibility?

2) "The Defendant further described in the interview that he dragged Tibbetts on foot from his vehicle to a secluded location in a cornfield. Rivera described he put her over his shoulder and took her about 20 meters into the cornfield and he left her covered in some corn leaves and that he left her there, face up."

• So IMO, according to his claims, he dragged her from the car down the edge of the cornfield (as seen in previous pictures), but then had to carry her INTO the corn. That was fuzzy in my mind before.
• Nowhere in his statement does he actually say anything about her being dead. He only says he went to get her out of his trunk and saw blood on her head, so he took her into the cornfield. Maybe that's why he mentioned the "face up", to make it look like he thought she might still be alive?

1. My understanding of what he said (which could be way off) was that once he put her into the cornfield, he looked on his phone/GPS to see where he had gone so he could get back home. I'm guessing it was to make it more believable that he didn't remember anything until he got there. After driving the reverse route, finding it again would be pretty easy since there were only a couple turns.

2. I don't think he would have covered her with the cornstalks/leaves if he thought she might be alive, but who knows what goes through someone else's mind, especially at a time like that.

Again, MOO

 

[dlharris2712]

I agree. I know people from every race who have committed crime. I helped put a few in prison.

This case simply has a unique aspect that CR was in the country working undocumented.

It’s sad that we have to consider it but honestly it is just a contributing factor. Just a fact written on paper. No more weight than Chris Watts cheating in his wife or working for Anadarko.

The worst part of it is the fact that he killed and may have assaukted a young positive loving woman.

Mollie did nothing to lose perhaps 60 years to marry, have a child or 4, and to become anything she dreamed. It’s part of the American Dream each of us had when we were young.

Mollie may represent a daughter,granddaughter, niece or a friend. But to many of us she is the very best and brightest of a future each of us hopes for everyone.

CR took that all away and he needs to be punished for it. And there are to many Mollies out there with lives cut short for dark reasons most of us can’t understand.

EXCELLENT POST!!!

 

[ChuckMaureen]

I understood but I think there may have been some confusion on why the images shown are blurred that led up to the asking about image enhancement. I think you were saying that the blur may be because it is a section that is zoomed in on that is blurred and then when watched on a even bigger screen it just makes the blur more?

Digital images are not the same as Analog images. Both systems have limitations but Digital clearly is capable of providing the clearest and sharpest of images between the two.

When it comes to *detail*, higher resolution is the rule of the day. You need more pixels (pixel density relative to the overall scene) to provide detail of smaller elements in an image.

Watching an image on a larger display as opposed to a smaller display has the effect of blurring an image because pixels are fixed in size so that when viewed on larger displays the information displayed by a pixel also becomes larger. To mitigate that effect you can stand farther from the larger display to achieve a 'similar' image as presented on a smaller display.

This blurring effect is similar but has differences from that of zooming an image.

 

[Confusion]

I don't know what a Defense team would hope to gain by introducing such a ridiculous SODDI theory.

Excuse me? A ridiculous what (?) theory?

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Excuse me? A ridiculous what (?) theory?

"Some Other Dude Did It"

 

[MyBelle]

Excuse me? A ridiculous what (?) theory?

SODDI=Some Other Dude Did It