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

[MyBelle]

Defense counsel is obligated by law to present a defense and attempt to introduce "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jurors. I guarantee you they will introduce an alternative theory. And you will think it's ridiculous and you will be infuriated. The first case I ever sleuthed was Laci and Scott Peterson's. It was obvious to *almost* everyone that Scott was guilty. Scott had a slick defense attorney (Mark Geragos) who suggested that Laci was abducted by a satanic cult in a white van. (!) Right. But if defense counsel fails to adequately defend their client, the defendant can file a motion for a mistrial due to inadequate defense. So it's very important that the defense team challenges everything, and mounts a strong defense for their client.

Peterson now has an appeal based on several factors including ineffective counsel. All a defense is required to do is refute the actual evidence. Their job is NOT to present such a ludicrous theory that the jury becomes biased against them.

 

[MyBelle]

No you are correct, I’m playing devils advocate

We have to ask why he would ever think there was a body in the trunk if he blocked out when she threatened to call the police.

He would have to remember that part when he saw the earbud.....does that make any sense?

Makes perfect sense.

 

[MistyWaters]

Not yet, that we know of, but LE appears to be looking. According to the official record (up post) there appears to have have been a warrant issued in this case today. A lot of buzz as to why and for what. Stayed tuned...

Don’t we know LE searched CRs residence because it was reported via the media? They’d require a warrant wouldn’t they? They’d also require a warrant to seize the Malibu, CRs cellphone, maybe to search his locker at the dairy farm or seek out documents. The reason for the warrant may not deserve any buzz whatsoever except they’re required to legally obtain evidence. It can’t be an arrest warrant of another party because that wouldn’t be added onto CRs arrest file.

 

[Sanz]

I'd like to know how much money the family has paid to retain these lawyers. $1,000. $10,000. $1.00.

In my experience with attorneys. It depends on what type of case they are dealing with. There’s a lot of unknown fees upfront. My divorce attorney 20 years ago was $5000.00 retainer. Most Litigaton cases I’ve been involved in were $5,000.00. All my attorneys were specialists in their fields. I believe a jury trial is based on a per centage your assets. So whoever is paying privately the attorney has to be guaranteed they are going to be paid.

 

[Mercedes]

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 hear what you are saying, but lawyers can’t just make up a defense. That would be perpetrating a fraud on the court. He has to work with what he has.

 

[gliving]

I was thinking the question is really whether Mollie being left face up holds any psychological clues as to the killers mindset. I've read some killers will not leave their victims face up, but I haven't read anything regarding those that do.

He last said he was carrying her over his shoulder. Seems when he dropped her down, she'd land face up. I'm thinking she was already seriously incapacitated at that point. And the multiple sharp force injuries? Was that before the corn? idk

 

[MsBetsy]

Defense counsel is obligated by law to present a defense and attempt to introduce "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jurors. I guarantee you they will introduce an alternative theory. And you will think it's ridiculous and you will be infuriated. The first case I ever sleuthed was Laci and Scott Peterson's. It was obvious to *almost* everyone that Scott was guilty. Scott had a slick defense attorney (Mark Geragos) who suggested that Laci was abducted by a satanic cult in a white van. (!) Right. But if defense counsel fails to adequately defend their client, the defendant can file a motion for a mistrial due to inadequate defense. So it's very important that the defense team challenges everything, and mounts a strong defense for their client.

That case is what got me interested in True crime, as well. There is a very interesting book, written by a forensic psychologist, that includes a full analysis of Scott Peterson as well as Laci Peterson ( and why she would not have seen him for the way he really was) It includes a study of their lives from birth, as well as the details of the crime. You might be interested in it, I couldn't put it down. I don't remember the title, but I'm sure it can be easily found. The author has written several well-know crimebooks.

 

[kpm]

Yes, I think I know exactly what you mean. If the earbud triggered his memory, he must have had some recollection that he did something terrible to her to recall that her body was in the trunk. Is that right?

Yes, lol

I just can’t put it in the right words or meaning

If the last thing he told LE was she threatened to call 911, he got mad and blocked out there, were he encountered her jogging.

So he supposedly comes to with her earbud on his lap, which is so bizarre in itself, and his first inclination is she’s in the trunk, not jeez I hope she didn’t call 911 or I hope I didn’t hurt her in my block out.

So then he does a u-turn looking for a spot to leave her body that he doesn’t even remember putting in a trunk

So, unless we are missing a whole section of confession that he pulled over and checked his trunk, he had left the scene of the initial encounter and was driving to a spot to dispose of a body he had no idea was in his truck.

 

[MistyWaters]

Defense counsel is obligated by law to present a defense and attempt to introduce "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jurors. I guarantee you they will introduce an alternative theory. And you will think it's ridiculous and you will be infuriated. The first case I ever sleuthed was Laci and Scott Peterson's. It was obvious to *almost* everyone that Scott was guilty. Scott had a slick defense attorney (Mark Geragos) who suggested that Laci was abducted by a satanic cult in a white van. (!) Right. But if defense counsel fails to adequately defend their client, the defendant can file a motion for a mistrial due to inadequate defense. So it's very important that the defense team challenges everything, and mounts a strong defense for their client.

It’d be a good time for Alathea, our VI legal-beagle to stop by and respond to some of your comments because I think you’ve got it sort of backward. The onus is never on the defense to prove their client innocence. Reasonable doubt can be created just by poking holes in the prosecutions case, without an alternate theory. Jurors are instructed to form an opinion based on the evidence only, not prosecution’s or defence theories.

 

[kpm]

Excellent point! What’s the connection between his seeing the earbud and then remembering he put her in the trunk? The only thing I can think of is at this point, LE had enough to lay murder #1 charges and limited the information written on the arrest warrant, prior to further questioning.

“He noticed there was an ear piece from headphones in his lap and that is how he realized he put her in the trunk”.
http://www.dps.state.ia.us/commis/p...-2018_DCI_ArrestWarrantComplaintAffidavit.pdf

To make the leap from earbud to body in the trunk is a huge leap

Of course we know he’s lying and so does LE

 

[rebel123]

I was thinking the question is really whether Mollie being left face up holds any psychological clues as to the killers mindset. I've read some killers will not leave their victims face up, but I haven't read anything regarding those that do.

He said he carried her over his shoulder; so when laying her down; it could only be one way be 'face up' (a fireman's lift).

 

[SteveP]

That case is what got me interested in True crime, as well. There is a very interesting book, written by a forensic psychologist, that includes a full analysis of Scott Peterson as well as Laci Peterson ( and why she would not have seen him for the way he really was) It includes a study of their lives from birth, as well as the details of the crime. You might be interested in it, I couldn't put it down. I don't remember the title, but I'm sure it can be easily found. The author has written several well-know crimebooks.

O/T, but I miss the old days of Court TV, when they showed high-profile trials from all over the country, and actually had some good crime reporters and commentators.

 

[RANCH]

Peterson now has an appeal based on several factors including ineffective counsel. All a defense is required to do is refute the actual evidence. Their job is NOT to present such a ludicrous theory that the jury becomes biased against them.

I thought the jury in the Casey Anthony trial would be angered at Jose Baez for giving them a ridiculous story about an accidental drowning without a shred of evidence to back it up.

But I was wrong. The jury bought into it and acquitted.

 

[Al Hoffman]

It’d be a good time for Alathea, our VI legal-beagle to stop by and respond to some of your comments because I think you’ve got it sort of backward. The onus is never on the defense to prove their client innocence. Reasonable doubt can be created just by poking holes in the prosecutions case, without an alternate theory. Jurors are instructed to form an opinion based on the evidence only, not prosecution’s or defence theories.

But, that's not how Perry Mason did it! But, yeah, you right.

 

[RANCH]

In my experience with attorneys. It depends on what type of case they are dealing with. There’s a lot of unknown fees upfront. My divorce attorney 20 years ago was $5000.00 retainer. Most Litigaton cases I’ve been involved in were $5,000.00. All my attorneys were specialists in their fields. I believe a jury trial is based on a per centage your assets. So whoever is paying privately the attorney has to be guaranteed they are going to be paid.

The percentage of the defendant's assets or the person paying the bill?

 

[MistyWaters]

To make the leap from earbud to body in the trunk is a huge leap

Of course we know he’s lying and so does LE

I think there’s much more to those interviews than the 20 or so lines of type that’s written on the arrest warrant. CR was interviewed for several hours and iirc LE stated he was cooperative.

This is reminding me of going around and around over the ambiguous five circles and what did they mean. LE knows more than we do.

 

[Gumbeaux]

I always wonder if the abducter is joining us on WS and participating in our dialogue. If so, are there any members/posters who suddenly stopped on the date of the apprehension?

I noted very likely that scenario. Creeped me out thoroughly.

 

[rebel123]

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.

Yes, he regained some of his memory when he saw the 'earbud'.

 

[MsBetsy]

I was thinking the question is really whether Mollie being left face up holds any psychological clues as to the killers mindset. I've read some killers will not leave their victims face up, but I haven't read anything regarding those that do.

Not leave them face up because of some sort of feeling of guilt, you mean? ( as if they can't bear to look in their eyes) just asking because I'm curious as I haven't heard that before. If that's the reasoning, maybe there is some reason behind it.

 

[MyBelle]

I thought the jury in the Casey Anthony trial would be angered at Jose Baez for giving them a ridiculous story about an accidental drowning without a shred of evidence to back it up.

But I was wrong. The jury bought into it and acquitted.

Hasn't the Judge in that case said he believes Caylee died of an accidental dose of chloroform? If he had doubt about it, I'm not surprised the jury did, either. I think the jury found it plausible because there was an uncovered and not fenced pool in the backyard that the child could have accessed.