Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #47

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stall stall stall bill the taxpayers. Attorneys Excel at billable hours ! I understood his Miranda was read to him in Spanish by Latino officer. If mistaken I apologise. They got nothin. Black out = diminished capacity ? Stalking= laying in wait. Hoping judge making sure this is unquestionably fair. Because the people are paying this perps legal bills. Gonna be a long one. So terribly sorry for the family, friends and residents of Iowa MOO
 
mickey2942 said:
How are police officers supposed to know that a suspect has the right to contact the Mexican Consulate? Did the suspect request this?

At this point, at the very least, make sure that there is an ICE detainer on Baheana, to ensure that if he is released on a technicality, that he is detained until a deportation hearing.
Click to expand...
I just spent awhile looking into this claim, that the police were supposed to inform him of his right to speak to the Mexican Embassy.

I think the defense is bluffing and misconstruing the facts.

It is true, that there are some countries on a mandatory list, and here are the requirements:

When foreign nationals from most countries are arrested or detained, they may, upon request, have their consular officers notified without delay of their arrest or detention, and may have their communications to their consular officers forwarded without delay. In addition, foreign nationals must be advised of this information without delay.

For foreign nationals of some countries, consular officers must be notified of the arrest or detention of a foreign national even if the foreign national does not request or want notification.

Consular officers are entitled to communicate with and to have access to their nationals in detention, and to provide consular assistance to them, including arranging for legal representation.

However Mexico is NOT on the mandatory list of notifications.

ALSO, here is a key point:

STEPS TO FOLLOW WHEN A FOREIGN NATIONAL IS ARRESTED OR DETAINED

1. DETERMINE THE FOREIGN NATIONAL’S COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY. IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER INFORMATION, ASSUME THIS IS THE COUNTRY ON WHOSE PASSPORT OR OTHER TRAVEL DOCUMENT THE FOREIGN NATIONAL IS TRAVELING.

But in this case, the murder suspect was not traveling with a passport or a travel document. He was here illegally, and had phoney ID.

So I am not sure that this notification process would kick in, given the circumstances. These are the regulations and legal steps to follow when arresting a foreign national for DUI or robbery, etc, and the officer checks his ID and he is visiting from another country.

But this suspect was here, hiding from his country and from our country. I don't think he wanted to be in contact with his embassy, given his legal status at the time.

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/travel/CNAtrainingresources/CNA Manual 5th Edition_September 2018.pdf
 
Last edited:
katydid23 said:
I just spent awhile looking into this claim, that the police were supposed to inform him of his right to speak to the Mexican Embassy.

I think the defense is bluffing and misconstruing the facts.

It is true, that there are some countries on a mandatory list, and here are the requirements:

When foreign nationals from most countries are arrested or detained, they may, upon request, have their consular officers notified without delay of their arrest or detention, and may have their communications to their consular officers forwarded without delay. In addition, foreign nationals must be advised of this information without delay.

For foreign nationals of some countries, consular officers must be notified of the arrest or detention of a foreign national even if the foreign national does not request or want notification.

Consular officers are entitled to communicate with and to have access to their nationals in detention, and to provide consular assistance to them, including arranging for legal representation.

However Mexico is NOT on the mandatory list of notifications.

ALSO, here is a key point:

STEPS TO FOLLOW WHEN A FOREIGN NATIONAL IS ARRESTED OR DETAINED

1. DETERMINE THE FOREIGN NATIONAL’S COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY. IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER INFORMATION, ASSUME THIS IS THE COUNTRY ON WHOSE PASSPORT OR OTHER TRAVEL DOCUMENT THE FOREIGN NATIONAL IS TRAVELING.

But in this case, the murder suspect was not traveling with a passport or a travel document. He was here illegally, and had phone ID.

So I am not sure that this notification process would kick in, given the circumstances. This is the regulations and legal streps to follow when arrested a foreign national for DUI or robbery, etc, and the officer checks his ID and he is visiting from another country.

But this suspect was here, hiding from his country and from our country. I don't think he wanted to be in contact with his embassy, given his legal status at the time.

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/travel/CNAtrainingresources/CNA Manual 5th Edition_September 2018.pdf
Click to expand...

Thank you for the comprehensive follow up information. I was wondering how the officers were supposed to "know" that the suspect was undocumented when he was lying to the officers.

Although, they would have known after he was fingerprinted, he would not have been in the database. But, when he was just being questioned, he was not arrested and charged at that time, and his fingerprints had not been taken. Which is exactly the point, how were they supposed to know?
 
mickey2942 said:
Thank you for the comprehensive follow up information. I was wondering how the officers were supposed to "know" that the suspect was undocumented when he was lying to the officers.

Although, they would have known after he was fingerprinted, he would not have been in the database. But, when he was just being questioned, he was not arrested and charged at that time, and his fingerprints had not been taken. Which is exactly the point, how were they supposed to know?
Click to expand...
Exactly, they wouldn't know his situation at the time. In fact, LE is not supposed to ask about whether a person ids legal or illegal, when they are first interviewing them about being a witness to a crime etc. And that was all he was at first. They saw a car that looked like his, near the missing jogger, and wanted to question the driver.
 
katydid23 said:
Exactly, they wouldn't know his situation at the time. In fact, LE is not supposed to ask about whether a person ids legal or illegal, when they are first interviewing them about being a witness to a crime etc. And that was all he was at first. They saw a car that looked like his, near the missing jogger, and wanted to question the driver.
Click to expand...

So from now on, all undocumented people need to tell police officers, "You cannot talk to me, I am a citizen of another country, and want to contact my consulate.".

I have my own suspicion as to why so many undocumented people do NOT want to contact their consulate, and that is because they are suspects in crimes in their former country. Suspect, not charged. So, they left. And we don't have any information if this particular person could have committed crimes in another country, was never caught, but decided to leave.
 
katydid23 said:
I don't think it will be that big of a problem to prove 1st degree murder.

He took her because he wanted to assault a woman, for the usual motives that men kidnap women. Her blood was in the trunk of his car.

He saw a woman he fancied, that was jogging by. So he grabbed her and threw her in the trunk.
He slashed her and left her in a cornfield. That is first degree murder, imo.
Click to expand...
While it is very easy to assume a sexual motive in this case, in all actuality, we don't know that it was. We don't know if he intended to (or proceeded to) rape her. We don't even know that she was alive when he put her in his trunk.

He hasn't been charged with stalking, attempted rape, rape, kidnapping, assault, or battery. To me that says he killed her right then and there on the road she'd been running. I could be wrong and Murder One covers the whole crime. IDK. And all of this doesn't mean it wasn't sexually motivated, either. I just can't say that for certain without knowing more. JMO
 
Last edited:
TL4S said:
While it is very easy to assume a sexual motive in this case, in all actuality, we don't know that it was. We don't know if he intended to (or proceeded to) rape her. We don't even know that she was alive when he put her in his trunk.

He hasn't been charged with stalking, attempted rape, rape, kidnapping, assault, or battery. To me that says he killed her right then and there on the road she'd been running. I could be wrong and Murder One covers the whole crime. IDK. And all of this doesn't mean it wasn't sexually motivated, either. I just can't say that for certain without knowing more. JMO
Click to expand...

I dont think it matters, either way, if he killed her right on the street and then threw her in the trunk, or killed her while she was in the trunk or when she was in the cornfield.

Fact is he followed her in his car, then ran after her and dragged her, dead or alive , to his car, where she ended up dead at some point.

I think there was a sexual motive, either way. He wanted her, even if he had to kill her. JMO
 
Seattle1 said:
So how important is CR's confession that may have been given under deficient miranda right warning?

I don't think it's important enough to send CR free.

IMO, the actual evidence is worth more than his word, and I believe it's all admissible.

For example, the car was searched by the Feds after CR gave verbal and written permission. I believe this search occurred prior to CR coming to police department. I believe evidence obtained from the car including Mollie's blood and hair are admissible.

I also don't think there's any question that CR was fully under miranda (no deficiency read here) when he traveled with LE and led them directly to the corn field where Mollie's remains were found.

If the jury has to infer how Mollie, her hair and blood, got inside CR's car and to the cornfield, where he led police, so be it.

MOO
Click to expand...
I’ve neglected mollies thread - but why am I not surprised this still haven’t been brought to trial ? So unfair IMO to her family
 
Seattle1 said:
The second, supplemental motion to suppress essentially included the contact information for the Mexican Consulate. Defense provided that his illegal alien client was entitled to contact the Mexican Consulate before speaking to police but nobody told him about this.

As to how solid the defense motion to suppress CR's confession, this is what his own lawyer said on his fb before he was representing CR:



(Frese was also vocal when the pig farmer was being suspected in Mollie's disappearance).
Click to expand...

All such interesting "coincidences" on the part of CR's attorney, @Seattle1!
 
Seattle1 said:
OK, here we go.

Defense is going to want to retest, and use their own witnesses to support their own conclusions.

What's most disappointing to me is this couple representing CR. I'm sure some will argue that they are doing their job but it almost seems to me that they are taking advantage of the defendant. I think he agrees to anything they propose to him.

It's just sleazy how bad they wanted to represent him. :eek:

MOO
Click to expand...

Of course, @Seattle1, everyone following this case can surely imagine the dismay of those living in Iowa, who very much concur with your view on this pair of attorneys.
 
Tiger Stripes said:
Or... It's all about getting a ton of free, nationwide publicity in MSM & on SM!
Click to expand...

I think that it more than that. There are attorneys and judges who seem to view helping people who break laws, as being some sort of modern day "Robin Hood", anti-establishment era folks, still fighting "The Man".

They get law students who are idealistic involved in their crusade, and it is literally 100's of hours of free law research, finding the most obscure cases and findings to support byzantine interpretation of the law, bent over backwards in a yoga pretzel shape, that was never the intention of the constitution.

Great job, criminals free, back in society.
 
Wednesday, November 13th:
*Suppression Hearing (@ 9am CT) – IA – Mollie Cecilia Tibbetts (20) (July 18, 2018, Brooklyn; found Aug. 21, 2018) – *Cristhian Bahena Rivera aka John Budd (24) arrested (8/21/18), charged (8/22/18) & arraigned (9/19/18) with 1st degree murder. Plead not guilty. $5M cash only bond.
ICE logged an immigration detainer on Rivera. Confessed to killing Mollie.
Trial set to begin on 2/4/20 (should last about 6 to 8 days). Trial moved from Poweshiek County to Woodbury County.
Court hearings from 8/22/18 thru 10/9/19 reference post #352 here:
Found Deceased - IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #47
10/18/19 Update: Court documents filed Friday by prosecutors acknowledge that the initial Miranda warning given to Rivera around 11:30 p.m. on August 20th, 2018, failed to inform him that anything he said could be used against him in court. His Miranda rights were accurately read to him a second time at 5:50 a.m. August 21st, as police were in a cornfield where Tibbetts’ body was found. The state does argue in Friday’s filings that they should be able to use statements Rivera made between 11:30 p.m. and 5:50 a.m. to refute testimony. Defense lawyers say the statements should be fully suppressed. Suppression hearing on 10/22, 10/23 & 10/24.
10/22/19 Update: Hearing that was supposed to begin today is now postponed. There has been a death in the family of one of the attorneys. Judge reset a hearing, postponed early Tuesday, to Nov. 13. Expert witnesses will testify, during next month’s hearing, about how sleep deprivation affects a person’s judgment and DNA. A court interpreter will also challenge the accuracy of the Spanish used by law enforcement and the translated transcript provided by the prosecution. Judge is set to decide next month what evidence will be presented to jurors at the February trial.
10/24/19 Update: The state agreed with the defense that any statements Rivera made between 11:30 p.m. and 5:50 a.m. should be suppressed, but argued that the prosecution should have the right to use any of the statements made at that time to rebut testimony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 136 more.
Total: 2,120 (members: 137, guests: 1,983)

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
1,983
Total visitors
2,120
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,386
Messages
18,186,412
Members
233,341
Latest member
serge
Back
Top