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

[PommyMommy]

JAN 28, 2020
Court delays trial for man charged with killing Iowa student - KTTC
[...]

Cristhian Bahena Rivera had been scheduled to stand trial for first-degree murder on Feb. 4 in Sioux City.

That plan became uncertain last week when Judge Joel Yates suspended the case so that the Iowa Supreme Court could decide whether to grant Rivera's pretrial appeal of a key ruling.

A court spokesman said Tuesday that the trial has been delayed and will not happen in the month of February.

A new trial date will be set after the Iowa Supreme Court decides how to handle Rivera's appeal.

[...]

 

[TL4S]

Probably old news to everyone here, but I hadn't followed this case as closely for awhile and missed this. I know there's something about a pocket knife found, but is there any other updated information on the cell, Fitbit, or murder weapon? BBM

November 13, 2019:

State calls witnesses to stand to detail events leading up to Mollie Tibbetts' discovery as defense argues for evidence exclusion

A Poweshiek County sheriff's deputy said Wednesday that Mollie Tibbetts' phone, Fitbit and "murder weapon" are still missing as evidence in the 2018 slaying of the University of Iowa student.

-----------------------
https://nypost.com/2019/11/13/slain...phone-fitbit-and-murder-weapon-still-missing/

Authorities still haven’t found the weapon used to stab Mollie Tibbetts to death more than a year after her murder, it was revealed in court Wednesday.


The 20-year-old University of Iowa student’s cellphone and FitBit have also not yet been recovered, Poweshiek County Sheriff’s Deputy Steve Kivi said in court, according to The Des Moines Register.


The acknowledgement of the missing items came during the first day of a hearing in Poweshiek County Court, where Judge Joel Yates heard arguments over whether evidence against accused killer Cristhian Bahena Rivera should be thrown out.

 

[MistyWaters]

Probably old news to everyone here, but I hadn't followed this case as closely for awhile and missed this. I know there's something about a pocket knife found, but is there any other updated information on the cell, Fitbit, or murder weapon? BBM

November 13, 2019:

State calls witnesses to stand to detail events leading up to Mollie Tibbetts' discovery as defense argues for evidence exclusion

A Poweshiek County sheriff's deputy said Wednesday that Mollie Tibbetts' phone, Fitbit and "murder weapon" are still missing as evidence in the 2018 slaying of the University of Iowa student.

-----------------------
https://nypost.com/2019/11/13/slain...phone-fitbit-and-murder-weapon-still-missing/

Authorities still haven’t found the weapon used to stab Mollie Tibbetts to death more than a year after her murder, it was revealed in court Wednesday.


The 20-year-old University of Iowa student’s cellphone and FitBit have also not yet been recovered, Poweshiek County Sheriff’s Deputy Steve Kivi said in court, according to The Des Moines Register.


The acknowledgement of the missing items came during the first day of a hearing in Poweshiek County Court, where Judge Joel Yates heard arguments over whether evidence against accused killer Cristhian Bahena Rivera should be thrown out.

I’ve also wondered why we’ve heard nothing more of Molly’s Fitbit as a means of using it to track her location. This was often mentioned during the 5-week search. When her body was initially found “her digital footprint” was again mentioned, as opposed to CR leading them to the location. After that it appears the significance on the Fitbit data entirely diminished upon CRs confession to LE.

BBM
“While investigators earlier had looked into the area where Tibbetts' body was ultimately discovered — a cornfield roughly 12 miles southeast of Brooklyn — Rahn said detectives wouldn't have seen the woman's body even if they were relatively close, as it was covered in cornstalks.

He wouldn't detail what led investigators to the Deep River Area where Tibbetts' body was found, but stressed that they "focused hard on her digital footprint."....”
Mollie Tibbetts investigation: Chevy Malibu seen in surveillance video not registered to suspect Rivera, source says

July 30/2018
“Late Thursday, investigators said they had completed reconstructing their timeline of Mollie's run, relying on Fitbit data, cell phone pings and eyewitnesses.”
Investigators turn to Fitbit data for clues about missing Iowa college student

Rather than Fitbit and cell phone pings, it appears it was the video footage which was turned over late to LE that identified the Black Malibu.
“The recordings showed Tibbetts running by, and also showed a black Chevrolet Malibu repeatedly passing through the area.”
How a video helped solve mystery of Mollie Tibbetts' disappearance, authorities say

 

[TL4S]

I’ve also wondered why we’ve heard nothing more of Molly’s Fitbit as a means of using it to track her location. This was often mentioned during the 5-week search. When her body was initially found “her digital footprint” was again mentioned, as opposed to CR leading them to the location. After that it appears the significance on the Fitbit data entirely diminished upon CRs confession to LE.

BBM
“While investigators earlier had looked into the area where Tibbetts' body was ultimately discovered — a cornfield roughly 12 miles southeast of Brooklyn — Rahn said detectives wouldn't have seen the woman's body even if they were relatively close, as it was covered in cornstalks.

He wouldn't detail what led investigators to the Deep River Area where Tibbetts' body was found, but stressed that they "focused hard on her digital footprint."....”
Mollie Tibbetts investigation: Chevy Malibu seen in surveillance video not registered to suspect Rivera, source says

July 30/2018
“Late Thursday, investigators said they had completed reconstructing their timeline of Mollie's run, relying on Fitbit data, cell phone pings and eyewitnesses.”
Investigators turn to Fitbit data for clues about missing Iowa college student

Rather than Fitbit and cell phone pings, it appears it was the video footage which was turned over late to LE that identified the Black Malibu.
“The recordings showed Tibbetts running by, and also showed a black Chevrolet Malibu repeatedly passing through the area.”
How a video helped solve mystery of Mollie Tibbetts' disappearance, authorities say

I'm curious what happened to those items. Honestly, I half-way expected at least the Fitbit to be with the body. It still makes me wonder if there was a stop made somewhere between the road she was jogging, and the cornfield. And why would CR lead LE to the body, but not tell them where her cell or Fitbit ended up? Unless he did and they couldn't recover them, like it was in the river, buried, burned up, or something. Just curious to me.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm curious what happened to those items. Honestly, I half-way expected at least the Fitbit to be with the body. It still makes me wonder if there was a stop made somewhere between the road she was jogging, and the cornfield. And why would CR lead LE to the body, but not tell them where her cell or Fitbit ended up? Unless he did and they couldn't recover them, like it was in the river, buried, burned up, or something. Just curious to me.

Was that what they were looking for at the house on 200th where the knife was seized from?

 

[Alethea]

I'm curious what happened to those items. Honestly, I half-way expected at least the Fitbit to be with the body. It still makes me wonder if there was a stop made somewhere between the road she was jogging, and the cornfield. And why would CR lead LE to the body, but not tell them where her cell or Fitbit ended up? Unless he did and they couldn't recover them, like it was in the river, buried, burned up, or something. Just curious to me.

He probably took everything off her body to rob her but then realized these devices can be tracked so he can't really sell them.

I think the issues that have come up in the defense (improper Miranda, failure to turn over evidence) are really unfortunate in a case as serious as the cold-blooded murder of an innocent woman but the issues are serious and do have to be addressed by the court. The purpose of a defense lawyer is to ensure anyone accused of a crime has a fair trial and the state follows the procedures established over hundreds of years to have the most fair system possible. His lawyers can't just let this go because he's a really bad guy - they have a duty to ensure the process is fair. Granted if he accepted a plea and took responsibility for his actions it wouldn't have come to this but I really can't blame attorneys who spend their lives ensuring the system is fair for doing their jobs.

 

[Seattle1]

'd like to understand this portion of their Argument to the Supreme Court:

"Upon (law enforcement's) arrival, Bahena was essentially faced with two options: attempt to evade, which will certainly fail; or cooperate and hope for no consequences. Both of which were hopeless endeavors," the defense wrote in their Supreme Court request. "Bahena had no choice but to submit to the authority of the agents.”
Mollie Tibbetts case: Unidentified fingerprints, blood found in Cristhian Bahena Rivera's trunk, records show

^^sbm

This is the same thing the defense pulled in the suppression hearing.

The defense alleged that CR would not have talked to the investigators had they told him he could contact the Mexican Consulate. I don't think CR asked for anything most likely because he was undocumented and feared deportation and not because CR had limited knowledge or education! I'd say he's pretty smart and clever to be able to sneak into another country, obtain a false identity, and set up a comfortable life for himself.

At the suppression hearing, several of his family members (who are documented/legal residents) testified that they went to the sheriff's office when CR was being questioned and waited for him-- yet none of them brought an attorney or contacted the Mexican consulate.

When CR's defense presented these allegations about his rights during the evidence suppression hearing in the form of a sworn affidavit by CR, they denied the State to question his sworn statement so the Judge responded that the affidavit was excluded from evidence. Seems to me the defense wants the supreme court to grant the content of the affidavit admitted as evidence but under their own rules.

I hope it becomes more clear when the supreme court rejects this.

MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

^^sbm

This is the same thing the defense pulled in the suppression hearing.

The defense alleged that CR would not have talked to the investigators had they told him he could contact the Mexican Consulate. I don't think CR asked for anything most likely because he was undocumented and feared deportation and not because CR had limited knowledge or education! I'd say he's pretty smart and clever to be able to sneak into another country, obtain a false identity, and set up a comfortable life for himself.

At the suppression hearing, several of his family members (who are documented/legal residents) testified that they went to the sheriff's office when CR was being questioned and waited for him-- yet none of them brought an attorney or contacted the Mexican consulate.

When CR's defense presented these allegations about his rights during the evidence suppression hearing in the form of a sworn affidavit by CR, they denied the State to question his sworn statement so the Judge responded that the affidavit was excluded from evidence. Seems to me the defense wants the supreme court to grant the content of the affidavit admitted as evidence but under their own rules.

I hope it becomes more clear when the supreme court rejects this.

MOO

Firstly, I’m all for fighting for your client. My problem in cases like this is I feel that defense’s attorneys, knowing their client is guilty, and wanting justice served, should be putting tons of effort into negotiating a plea deal as favorable as they could for CR. Instead they are spending tons of effort trying to get him acquitted. CR confessed to killing Mollie, Even if that is thrown out because of a technicality, he killed Mollie. But his lawyers are trying to have him walk free. It’s nothing but a game for them.
Secondly, I’m all for fair trials. But I want it to be fair for Mollie too.

 

[Bravo]

We have seen some Trials where Defense just saw to it that their Client got a fair Trial. So many today seem to be simply about winning!

 

[TL4S]

Firstly, I’m all for fighting for your client. My problem in cases like this is I feel that defense’s attorneys, knowing their client is guilty, and wanting justice served, should be putting tons of effort into negotiating a plea deal as favorable as they could for CR. Instead they are spending tons of effort trying to get him acquitted. CR confessed to killing Mollie, Even if that is thrown out because of a technicality, he killed Mollie. But his lawyers are trying to have him walk free. It’s nothing but a game for them.
Secondly, I’m all for fair trials. But I want it to be fair for Mollie too.

I wonder what CR told his counsel about that night. I also wonder if maybe this case's backstory is more complicated than it appears.

Current media articles say CR confessed to killing MT, but right after his arrest, the only thing on the police reports is CR stating that when MT said she was going to call the police, he got angry, "blacked out" until he drove to an intersection, saw an earbud on his lap, remembered she was in the trunk, drove to the pull off in the cornfield, saw blood on her head, carried her into the cornfield, and covered her body with corn stalks. LE said he used his phone to determine what route he'd taken and then led them to the body. I mean, that's a "confession" to me, but is it one legally? AFAIK, he never confessed the the actual murder itself, which conveniently would have taken place during his alleged "black out." These statements might be the ones that are now suppressed due to the Miranda warning error, anyway, but now there's also unidentified blood and fingerprints in the trunk of the car.

I can't help but wonder if the Defense is using these Constitutional Rights arguments to delay the trial so they have more time to look deeper into the possibility of an accomplice. If they can show somebody else was involved, in any capacity, that alone might give reasonable doubt enough for at least a lesser charge. Just throwing out ideas.

 

[Alethea]

Firstly, I’m all for fighting for your client. My problem in cases like this is I feel that defense’s attorneys, knowing their client is guilty, and wanting justice served, should be putting tons of effort into negotiating a plea deal as favorable as they could for CR. Instead they are spending tons of effort trying to get him acquitted. CR confessed to killing Mollie, Even if that is thrown out because of a technicality, he killed Mollie. But his lawyers are trying to have him walk free. It’s nothing but a game for them.
Secondly, I’m all for fair trials. But I want it to be fair for Mollie too.

I know it's frustrating but attorneys only have so much control. If your client insists they are innocent or "the state can't prove it," you can only counsel them as to your opinion and advice but you can't force them to do anything. The line is if they ask you to do something unethical or illegal. Is it ethical to put your client on the stand if you think they're going to lie? If you KNOW they are going to lie, you're enabling perjury. If you have no evidence they're lying but you just don't believe their story, what's the answer? Sometimes the only answer is to resign but you need court permission to withdraw as an attorney so even that is not always an option (unless you are being asked to do something that clearly violates the ethics rules or the law).

I personally have dealt with this in non-violent-crime cases and it's very difficult. I have started really limiting when I will "appear" on behalf of someone in Court because I'm committing myself to that client even if things go haywire. I have the luxury to do things like that when public defenders really don't - they'd never take a client if they could only choose to represent the innocent ones.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I know it's frustrating but attorneys only have so much control. If your client insists they are innocent or "the state can't prove it," you can only counsel them as to your opinion and advice but you can't force them to do anything. The line is if they ask you to do something unethical or illegal. Is it ethical to put your client on the stand if you think they're going to lie? If you KNOW they are going to lie, you're enabling perjury. If you have no evidence they're lying but you just don't believe their story, what's the answer? Sometimes the only answer is to resign but you need court permission to withdraw as an attorney so even that is not always an option (unless you are being asked to do something that clearly violates the ethics rules or the law).

I personally have dealt with this in non-violent-crime cases and it's very difficult. I have started really limiting when I will "appear" on behalf of someone in Court because I'm committing myself to that client even if things go haywire. I have the luxury to do things like that when public defenders really don't - they'd never take a client if they could only choose to represent the innocent ones.

Good points. Well taken.

 

[rodneymullenmg]

Very Relevant

FCC proposes $12.9 million fine against neo-Nazi robocaller Scott Rhodes

The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a $12.9 million fine against Scott D. Rhodes, a Nazi sympathizer who has plagued communities with racist, anti-Semitic and threatening robocalls while living in Libby, Montana, and Sandpoint.

In an announcement Thursday, the FCC said Rhodes, 50, has repeatedly violated the Truth in Caller ID Act by manipulating or “spoofing” calls to make them appear as if they came from local phone numbers.

The announcement confirms previous reporting by The Spokesman-Review and other news organizations linking Rhodes to thousands of abusive automated calls in at least eight states. Apparently working alone, Rhodes has made prolific use of the technology, denigrating public figures and seizing on local news events to promote his particular brand of white supremacist ideology....
==
...
n August 2018, Rhodes sent 827 robocalls to residents of Brooklyn, Iowa, following the murder of local college student Mollie Tibbetts. Cristhian Bahena Rivera, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was charged with the crime after Tibbetts’ body was discovered in a corn field.

Relatives of Tibbetts were among those who received the robocalls, which referred to Latinos as “brown hordes” and “savages.”...

 

[Seattle1]

I wonder what CR told his counsel about that night. I also wonder if maybe this case's backstory is more complicated than it appears.

Current media articles say CR confessed to killing MT, but right after his arrest, the only thing on the police reports is CR stating that when MT said she was going to call the police, he got angry, "blacked out" until he drove to an intersection, saw an earbud on his lap, remembered she was in the trunk, drove to the pull off in the cornfield, saw blood on her head, carried her into the cornfield, and covered her body with corn stalks. LE said he used his phone to determine what route he'd taken and then led them to the body. I mean, that's a "confession" to me, but is it one legally? AFAIK, he never confessed the the actual murder itself, which conveniently would have taken place during his alleged "black out." These statements might be the ones that are now suppressed due to the Miranda warning error, anyway, but now there's also unidentified blood and fingerprints in the trunk of the car.

I can't help but wonder if the Defense is using these Constitutional Rights arguments to delay the trial so they have more time to look deeper into the possibility of an accomplice. If they can show somebody else was involved, in any capacity, that alone might give reasonable doubt enough for at least a lesser charge. Just throwing out ideas.

There were two full days of suppression hearings last November where live streaming was allowed in the courtroom and video was linked up-thread.

During the hearings, members of CR's family, expert witnesses, etc. all testified and were cross-examined. They were a good indication of the defense strategy in my opinion. The judge issued his ruling on the evidence excluded late December which is thoroughly described in my media posts quoted below. There were no surprises here.

While the evidence suppression hearings and ruling were prior to the disclosure of new blood and fingerprint evidence, this does not negate the Judge's suppression ruling.

The defense already rightfully motioned and received for more time to investigate the new evidence so it's disappointing that there's now a stay because of the supreme court matter -- which I'm not concerned about since the same civil rights arguments were struck down in November.

I agree that this extended delay may be what the defense really wanted but I doubt they will use it to develop the "accomplice" defense for reasonable doubt. I think the new evidence can be easily explained.

MOO

Judge rules in favor of state in Mollie Tibbetts case; most testimony, evidence, to be allowed at trial

Dec 23, 2019

A judge has ruled that, despite requests to suppress evidence, most testimony and evidence against the man accused of killing Iowa college student Mollie Tibbetts can be taken to trial.

District Judge Joel Yates, in an opinion filed Monday, has ruled in the defense's favor that any testimonial evidence obtained between when Cristhian Bahena Rivera was read his Miranda rights improperly and when he was read them properly about six hours later cannot be used at trial.

However, Yates disagreed with Bahena Rivera's other claims that his rights were violated.

Yates concluded that Bahena Rivera did consent to the search of his car, that his statements were made voluntarily despite his claims of sleep deprivation and lengthy interrogation, and that law enforcement did not use language likely to induce a false confession, according to court documents. bbm

Lynn Hicks, a spokesman for the Iowa Attorney General's office, said the state is pleased with the ruling and is prepared to continue the trial, scheduled to begin Feb. 4, 2020, in Woodbury County. If convicted of first-degree murder, Bahena Rivera would face a mandatory sentence of life in prison.

[..]

Authorities have said that Bahena Rivera led them to Tibbetts’ body after telling police that he chased the young jogger after driving past her the evening she disappeared. She threatened to call police, at which point he said he got mad and “blocked his memory.” Bahena Rivera admitted to then finding her body in his trunk, before hiding her in a cornfield, according to court documents.

Judge: Key evidence can be used in Mollie Tibbetts' slaying

Dec 23, 2019

IOWA CITY, Iowa — In a victory for prosecutors, a judge ruled Monday that they can use key evidence at trial against the migrant worker charged with killing University of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts.

Judge Joel Yates agreed with prosecutors that some statements made by the defendant, Cristhian Bahena Rivera, must be suppressed because they came during an interrogation after he was not fully read his legal rights.

But Yates ruled that prosecutors can still use the information provided by Rivera that led them to the body of Tibbetts, who disappeared in July 2018 while out for a run in her small hometown of Brooklyn, Iowa. He also ruled that statements made by Rivera after the discovery of the body were admissible because he was read his rights at that point.

In addition, Yates also ruled that Rivera gave consent to search his vehicles, so prosecutors can use blood evidence discovered in the trunk of one car that allegedly contained Tibbetts' DNA.

[..]

A spokesman for the attorney general's office, which is helping Poweshiek County prosecute Rivera, hailed Monday's ruling as a positive step forward.

[..]

Yates had been weighing what evidence to allow at the trial after overseeing a two-day hearing in November on Rivera's motion to suppress key evidence

[..]

Investigators showed up at the dairy farm where Rivera worked to interview him and other employees in August 2018. He was taken to the sheriff's office, where he was questioned for hours. Eventually, Rivera allegedly directed investigators to the cornfield where they found Tibbetts' body.

Yates ruled that Rivera voluntarily gave consent to search his vehicles and to go the sheriff's office for the interrogation. He denied Rivera's defense's argument that he had been coerced into giving permission for both, and that his confession was the product of a sleep-deprived interrogation.

Investigators later discovered blood in the trunk of one of the vehicles that they say testing later linked to Tibbetts' DNA. Since the search of the vehicle was voluntary, Yates said that evidence can be used.

[..]

However, Yates ruled that prosecutors can use the discovery of Tibbetts' body as evidence since Rivera's statements were voluntarily given.

^^bbm

ETA: complete victory for prosecutor -- let the trial begin.

 

[SharonNeedles]

Firstly, I’m all for fighting for your client. My problem in cases like this is I feel that defense’s attorneys, knowing their client is guilty, and wanting justice served, should be putting tons of effort into negotiating a plea deal as favorable as they could for CR. Instead they are spending tons of effort trying to get him acquitted. CR confessed to killing Mollie, Even if that is thrown out because of a technicality, he killed Mollie. But his lawyers are trying to have him walk free. It’s nothing but a game for them.
Secondly, I’m all for fair trials. But I want it to be fair for Mollie too.

Plea deals don’t just happen as a way to meet in the middle. You’re not in a position to negotiate anything until what you’re offering is more appealing than going to trial - and I still think the defense is maneuvering to be in that position.

 

[mickey2942]

Does anyone really want Beana to go free? Then again, the person who "happened" to find a gun in the trash in San Francisco and didn't realize what it was, until he shot and killed Kate Stinle is free...and also, still living and working in the United States.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Does anyone really want Beana to go free? Then again, the person who "happened" to find a gun in the trash in San Francisco and didn't realize what it was, until he shot and killed Kate Stinle is free...and also, still living and working in the United States.

No, not if he killed her (which I believe he did) but I would like to know if there was someone else involved.

Did LE say he was actually seen on the video or did they find the car and then find him? How did LE get enough probable cause to search a house on 200th? How was he tied to that house? What happened to those other workers who took off when he was arrested? Did we ever hear anymore about them?

 

[Gardenista]

Iowa Supreme Court denies motion to suppress evidence in Mollie Tibbetts murder case

 

[PommyMommy]

FEB 4, 2020
Iowa Supreme Court denies suppression application in Mollie Tibbetts' murder trial
All evidence entered into the murder trial of a University of Iowa student will remain in the case.

The Iowa Supreme Court announced this morning they denied a motion presented by the lawyers of Cristhian Bahena Rivera.

Supreme Court denies Bahena Rivera’s request to review his evidence suppression claim ahead of trial
The court on Wednesday denied Cristhian Bahena Rivera’s application for discretionary review and request for stay after his legal team earlier this month asked the state’s highest court to review District Judge Joel Yates' Dec. 23 decision to allow most evidence to be taken to trial, despite the defense's arguments that most evidence should be suppressed.

 

[Seattle1]

FEB 4, 2020
Iowa Supreme Court denies suppression application in Mollie Tibbetts' murder trial
All evidence entered into the murder trial of a University of Iowa student will remain in the case.

The Iowa Supreme Court announced this morning they denied a motion presented by the lawyers of Cristhian Bahena Rivera.

Supreme Court denies Bahena Rivera’s request to review his evidence suppression claim ahead of trial
The court on Wednesday denied Cristhian Bahena Rivera’s application for discretionary review and request for stay after his legal team earlier this month asked the state’s highest court to review District Judge Joel Yates' Dec. 23 decision to allow most evidence to be taken to trial, despite the defense's arguments that most evidence should be suppressed.

THANK YOU!!

The evidence surrounding the deficient Miranda warning was ruled on based on the evidence and the testimony of several expert witnesses that the defense presented during two full days of hearings.

The defense also had an opportunity to admit their alleged civil rights violations into evidence last October and chose not to allow their client to be questioned about his late affidavit.

In my opinion, seeking relief from the Supreme Court was just another stalling tactic. I hope the stay can now be lifted, and that the defense will turn their attention to the late evidence (other blood in the trunk) they received in January.

MOO