glamourkitty1922
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 2,176
- Reaction score
- 6,719
Other blood and fingerprints in the trunk? I wonder if Rivera's a serial killer?
That was my first thought, too. His attorneys seem to think differently.Other blood and fingerprints in the trunk? I wonder if Rivera's a serial killer?
I should have read the article.I wonder who lives on 200th Street?
Did we conclude, way back when, that she suffered blunt force trauma?
Autopsy results showed she died of “multiple sharp force injuries.”
Other blood and fingerprints in the trunk? I wonder if Rivera's a serial killer?
They may be angling for a plea agreement of manslaughter or negligent homicide.Is it possible def attys are just adding this to their war chest and def knows damn good and well who belongs to blood/dna in his trunk. The strategy from the get is stall and muddy the waters on the residents of Iowa's dime MOO
They may be angling for a plea agreement of manslaughter or negligent homicide.
That's the lawyer's job, get the best deal possible. With the details coming out about other blood and fingerprints in that trunk, I'm wondering how many women he has murdered.Great. So he can be free to stalk and kill more young women like Mollie. This guy isn't going to get "better" or change. No amount of mental health treatment is going to change him. He isn't even an "Incel", he had a girlfriend, with a child.
Uggghhhh...I have a bad feeling about this. They found more blood from other people run his trunk, and the court is considering suppressing evidence found ?
This killer better not walk free over this. The cops were looking for a missing girl and they had video of him following her. They had the right and responsibility to keep questioning him.
I hope he doesn't get away with this, because he didnt understand the language. That was HIS choice to sneak into a country with a different language and different justice system. That wasn't Mollie's fault.
The cops did follow the rule book. The problem was, they brought in a woman who could interpret for the suspect, and she gave the Miranda warning in Spanish, and she left out one small portion when she gave the instructions. It was a mistake, not malicious or on purpose.I got to say I’m becoming a little disillusioned over the integrity of the police work. Early on it seemed like an simple open and shut case and LE did a commendable job in taking the vicious killer of Molly off the street. I don’t understand why they can’t just follow the rule book and eliminate any possibility of police procedures becoming an issue at trial.
Something I’m curious about which I don’t ever recall released was regarding the ownership of the vehicle. Who was it registered to and did CR have sole access to its usage?
Something I’m curious about which I don’t ever recall released was regarding the ownership of the vehicle. Who was it registered to and did CR have sole access to its usage?
The cops did follow the rule book. The problem was, they brought in a woman who could interpret for the suspect, and she gave the Miranda warning in Spanish, and she left out one small portion when she gave the instructions. It was a mistake, not malicious or on purpose.
It is very hard, in any large complicated process to 'eliminate any possibility of procedure eventually becoming a trial issue.' Easier said than done. When the defense team plays back the interview tapes, there are ALWAYS going to be 'issues' to bring out for the trial.
I don't see a lack of integrity on the part of LE here. I see them looking for a vulnerable, missing college student. They were not thinking about 'the trial'- they were thinking about finding her.
CR clearly had knowledge regarding Molly’s murder but until he’s convicted beyond reasonable doubt, I question if he acted alone and was solely responsible for her death. It’s just that it appears there are still unanswered questions at this time.
As for police tactics, I can’t think of one valid reason why it’d require 15 police officers to request one farm worker come along into town for voluntary questioning, especially as he’d already been stopped two days earlier and did not attempt to flee.
I also don’t recall having read LE already knew CR was associated with the black Chevy Malibu prior to the day of his confession.
If he had sole access to the black Chevy Malibu, I also wonder why he was driving his girlfriends car on the day of his arrest and what was his stated reason for borrowing her car that day? The accuracy of some of the media reports I do wonder about as well because I don’t believe anyone but the registered owner can give permission for investigators to conduct a lawful search of a vehicle, regardless of who’s known to have been driving it.
“The Freses added that 15 law enforcement officers arrived at Yarrabee Farms, which they said could be seen by Bahena Rivera, an undocumented immigrant, as a projection of authority.”
Mollie Tibbetts case: Unidentified fingerprints, blood found in Cristhian Bahena Rivera's trunk, records show
“....Prosecutors say the deputy did not stop the car, but instead, followed it until the driver stopped himself and the deputy approached them. The driver, was Cristhian Rivera. The deputy asked him about the Tibbetts disappearance, Rivera said he had no involvement and was allowed to leave.
Authorities next spoke to Bahena Rivera when they arrived at his employer's dairy two days later. They noticed Rivera was driving a different car, this one, belonging to his girlfriend. Rivera allegedly gave permission to investigators to search both vehicles and voluntarily went with deputies to the sheriff's office for questioning...”
Mollie Tibbetts blood found in suspect's trunk, investigators say
This is concerning but I think it will all end up right. If I remember it all right LE had security cam video of him following her which is why they went to talk to him. Probable cause. Prior to him being in custody or being arrested, prior to the need for him to be read his rights, he gave permission to search the car and Mollie’s blood is in his trunk. I don’t see how any of that could be excluded as evidence. And that evidence just by itself, in my opinion, points to his guilt.
If the extra blood is related to the murder it is either the suspect’s or somebody he knows or somebody at the farm and he should just say if someone helped him. Matching it shouldn’t be a problem. If it is some unknown person I don’t see how it could be related. I would think it’s from the previous owner of the car or a previous victim. As long as the prosecution doesn’t let the defense spin it up crazy it should be OK, but hopefully the court will let it all stand as is. Just my thoughts. Trying to be positive.