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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
ITA! This isn't something new pertaining to CR only. I have been here 14 years and if someone is arrested for murder more refer to them as the murderer or killer.

The presumption of innocence only applies to those who will be chosen to be on his jury if he goes to trial. The public does not, and never has been under the same rule which only pertains to those who sit in judgement on criminal trials. IUPG is a judicial standard for any jury who sits on actual cases, but it holds no weight or validity when it comes to the public at large.

Anyone in America is allowed to have opinions on any matter including being of the opinion someone is guilty before a trial is held. Their opinion can be whatever they believe at the time about any suspect whether it is before trial, during, and even after the verdict has been rendered.

Anyone who wants to give him the presumption of innocence on crime blogs such as this one certainly are entitled to do so. However; others may think, and express their opinions of guilt for which they are also entitled to do.

Since I live in Georgia, I certainly will not be a juror on his case, but if I was... I would be very honest during voir dire stating I believe him to be guilty, and the attorneys would dismiss me as they should. It happens all the time where many in jury pools believe they cannot be fair due to already having an opinion of guilt. When that happens they are weeded out, and they go on to the next potential juror.

It is very hard to presume he is innocent when he led LE to Mollie's body, and was seen on camera stalking her at the time she went missing. I think he is very guilty based on the info we know now.

We will see if the presumption of innocence holds up for very long once his jury starts hearing the facts/evidence connecting him to Mollie's murder.

Imo, IUPG will quickly begin to collapse once the evidence begins to be known and shown to the jurors who will sit in judgement on his particular case.



Good thoughts and I agree. BTW, good to see you OBE. :D:D:D
 
My own opionion but I wonder if there are other parts to the interview or a full transcription that did not make it on the to arrest warrant for a variety of reasons. Things that would come out in discovery. Maybe what is there on the arrest document was enough for the DA to agree to Murder 1 as documented and the intention was to hold the rest for the preliminary hearing. When preliminary hearings are waved, it is often because there is a great deal of evidence against the accused. MOO
My opinion is that he only told the parts of the story that he knew LE already knew about. Everything they don't know is what occurred during his " blackout"or lapse in memory.
 
Since the car is not in his name. Is it possible it’s a shared car? Which then leads me to wonder if someone else was possibly with him in the car. I feel like by now though if there was an accomplice, they would have been brought in.
 
Last edited:
The embassy in the link I gave stated they helped with counsel on any serious crime. Mexico needs the money their citizens send back from America so they will protect them through legal means.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Mexico is a very religious country, and predominately Catholic ( someone correct me if I am wrong) and I can understand why they would fight to keep someone from being put to death, but not necessarily for someone who has committed a vicious act of murder.
 
that's not accurate. He remembered that part of Mollie's earbud was on his lap jogging his memory that he had placed Mollie in the trunk. Then, he remembers leaving Mollie for dead with a head wound, if she wasn't already, in the cornfield. He remembers enough after the "call police threat" to go away for a long time.
Exactly, how can he ever explain he “blocked it out “ if he recalls putting her in the trunk?

What does he have spotty block outs.....
 
I'm not sure I agree with that. Mexico is a very religious country, and predominately Catholic ( someone correct me if I am wrong) and I can understand why they would fight to keep someone from being put to death, but not necessarily for someone who has committed a vicious act of murder.
I'm just saying what's on the embassy website.
 
Could he have passed out from too much adrenaline? Is that a thing?

And all these posts today about reasonable doubt and whatnot makes me think the defense would be kinda smart to anonymously post some theories around the Internet to see what things might give folks cause to experience some reasonable doubt? Not saying any one is doing that here necessarily, but it seems like it could be a helpful strategy. Post something, see how it goes, try something else, etc.
 
I have a curious question regarding narcissism. When you have a suspect who believes his own lies like this, how in the world do you provide the truth?
I think you mean prove the truth, but sometimes it is the very fact that the " narcississt" is so " full of himself ", that he will slip up. Some will eagerly tell their story to LE, gory details and all, it gives them a rush, and helps them to " relive the crime" jmo
 
Exactly, how can he ever explain he “blocked it out “ if he recalls putting her in the trunk?

What does he have spotty block outs.....
I don't think he remembers putting her in the trunk, just that she was there.How she got there he just doesn't know. Jmo
 
Could he have passed out from too much adrenaline? Is that a thing?

And all these posts today about reasonable doubt and whatnot makes me think the defense would be kinda smart to anonymously post some theories around the Internet to see what things might give folks cause to experience some reasonable doubt? Not saying any one is doing that here necessarily, but it seems like it could be a helpful strategy. Post something, see how it goes, try something else, etc.

I thought of that. I’m sure it’s happened. Some posts today actually made me think of a defense attorney or one in the making.
 
My stepdaughter walked away from a death penalty to serve only 12 and 1/3 years of 20 because of an invalid Miranda. Miranda can be invalidated.

Google "Christina Dillard enters guilty plea - Picayune Item"
I’ve been reading about the case since you posted, how tragic and heartbreaking

That poor little girl, I have no words

I’m so sorry (hugs)
 
I had originally thought that he had to use his phone just to look at a map because he may not have been very good at explaining directions. Just my impression. But as for the dragging by foot and then carrying her the rest of the way, that makes total sense. It would be really hard to drag someone through a cornfield. Not sure about the last part.
And boo on me, but I now believe there IS mention of something that more or less sounds like him admitting he knew she was dead. Near the end of the statement it says, "The physical surroundings of her location and other factors at the scene matched his earlier physical description of the area as that where he placed her body."

This is my first time following a case and the learning curve is ENORMOUS!
 
Could he have passed out from too much adrenaline? Is that a thing?

And all these posts today about reasonable doubt and whatnot makes me think the defense would be kinda smart to anonymously post some theories around the Internet to see what things might give folks cause to experience some reasonable doubt? Not saying any one is doing that here necessarily, but it seems like it could be a helpful strategy. Post something, see how it goes, try something else, etc.
I think that's more like fainting. It's confusing because a black out is commonly associated with everything going black and passing out. I don't think that's what he means, however. I think he is describing exactly what Jodi Arias claimed, as she was driving, she saw blood on her hands, and realized she must have "done something."
 
I don't think he remembers putting her in the trunk, just that she was there.How she got there he just doesn't know. Jmo
Why would he think she was in the trunk unless he remembered putting her there?

If he was blocked out and the last thing he remembered was her threatening to call the police then his last memory was that.

So what made him think she was in the trunk and not still jogging somewhere?

Even if he found her earbud, what made him think “oh she’s in the trunk” unless he recalled putting her there and not just racing away from the scene to avoid LE?
 
And boo on me, but I now believe there IS mention of something that more or less sounds like him admitting he knew she was dead. Near the end of the statement it says, "The physical surroundings of her location and other factors at the scene matched his earlier physical description of the area as that where he placed her body."

This is my first time following a case and the learning curve is ENORMOUS!
I don't think I saw that either! Funny how well he remembered those details and others he just can't remember. Again, he knows police are going to know that, so it's included in his story. Everything they can't figure out is what he claims not to remember. Makes perfect sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
2,144
Total visitors
2,325

Forum statistics

Threads
600,111
Messages
18,103,836
Members
230,990
Latest member
MollyKM
Back
Top