IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #39

[Al Hoffman]

IMO it doesn't matter what type of weapon. He used it. If it was simply something he had in his car he still had to get it. Intent. He retrieved the item with intent to kill.

Not necessarily in the case the State is building. If CR brought the knife with him, and used it in the commission of the crime, the presence of a knife shows intent.

But, suppose he tackled MT when she went for her phone and slamed her head on the ground to stun her, thus creating the head wound he spoke about. He then carries MT to the car and tries to put her in the trunk. She comes to, and fights like a wildcat, in the heat of the moment, CR grabs a Phillips head screw driver, laying in the trunk, and stabs her to subdue her, killing her by 8:28 p.m. at 1900 385th Ave. In this second scenario, the murder weapon does not prove intent, anymore than a rock taken from the side of the road, and used to kill someone. However, CR's actions leading up to this point do show specific intent to allow for a Murder One charge, along with elements of the felony murder rule.

Like nailing Jello to the wall, this case is.

 

[MistyWaters]

We know that Rivera had intent to commit a crime because:

• he had previously seen Mollie jogging
• he knew her route
• he drove to that part of her route where she was particularly vulnerable (East boundary of Brooklyn)
• he circled at that less-populated part of her route until she arrived (lying in wait)
• he grabbed her and put her in his car
• the location where he abducted her (presumably where he lay in wait) is next to immediate exit from Brooklyn via backroads
• he drove 10-15 miles out of Brooklyn to hide her body
• he had a weapon
• there was nothing unusual about him the day after the murder

Devils advocate, did he stalk her for the sole intent to murder or was he initially attracted to a heathy, beautiful, vibrant young woman running? Then in his delusional mind, he thought if he approached her and chatted it up, she might be mutually interested in him as well?

The part of his confession that rings true is her threat to call 911. Mollie was obviously not interested in this guy for a multitude of reasons. He crossed the line by persistently running beside her, wouldn’t leave her alone so rightfully she threatened to call LE.....and at that point he claimed he became mad/outraged.

“Intent” enters the picture imo at the time Mollie rebuked his advances.

 

[Al Hoffman]

Apologies folks ... some of you will have received a reason your post was deleted as "posting about individual not necessarily the accused in this case". This was in error to 4 out of the 5 members who received it. Was in a hurry and forgot that I had 5 posts selected, not just the one the reason pertained to.

Sillybilly...

 

[otto]

Not necessarily in the case the State is building. If CR brought the knife with him, and used it in the commission of the crime, the presence of a knife shows intent.

But, suppose he tackled MT when she went for her phone and slamed her head on the ground to stun her, thus creating the head wound he spoke about. He then carries MT to the car and tries to put her in the trunk. She comes to, and fights like a wildcat, in the jeat of the moment, CR grabs a Phillips head screw driver, laying in the trunk, and stabs her to subdue her, killing her by 8:28 p.m. at 1900 385th Ave. In this second scenario, the murder weapon does not prove intent, anymore than a rock taken from the side of the road, and used to kill someone. However, CR's actions leading up to this point do show specific intent to allow for a Murder One charge, also with elements of the felony murder rule.

Like nailing Jello to the wall, this case is.

Intent is best supported with the fact that he knew Mollie's route in advance, he selected a specific less-populated intersection along that route where he intended to accost her, that he circled around that intersection until Mollie arrived, and that he then abducted her. That alone demonstrates that he had intent.

 

[Bravo]

Intent can still be formed in the heat of the moment.

 

[The Farm]

Sillybilly...

Thanks, we need to laugh sometime even to just break the misery of this.

 

[Cardinal47]

Apologies folks ... some of you will have received a reason your post was deleted as "posting about individual not necessarily the accused in this case". This was in error to 4 out of the 5 members who received it. Was in a hurry and forgot that I had 5 posts selected, not just the one the reason pertained to.

Honestly I'm surprised you can even think straight. Thank you for all you do to 'keep us straight'! Much appreciated.

 

[otto]

Devils advocate, did he stalk her for the sole intent to murder or was he initially attracted to a heathy, beautiful, vibrant young woman running? Then in his delusional mind, he thought if he approached her and chatted it up, she might be mutually interested in him as well?

The part of his confession that rings true is her threat to call 911. Mollie was obviously not interested in this guy for a multitude of reasons. He crossed the line by persistently running beside her, wouldn’t leave her alone so rightfully she threatened to call LE.....and at that point he claimed he became mad/outraged.

“Intent” enters the picture imo at the time Mollie rebuked his advances.

I don't believe that she threatened him at all. He threatened her. He alleges that she threatened him because he wants to blame her for his imaginary block out that caused him to murder her.

He stalked her, learned her habits and running route, lay in wait for her to be alone on the East boundary of Brooklyn, he abducted her and threw her into his car. He then drove her out of Brooklyn, assaulted her, stabbed her multiple times, and hid her body. He was not interested in chatting with her.

 

[TL4S]

If proven, will having a past history of following women help argue intent?

 

[cheko1]

Intent can still be formed in the heat of the moment.

Intent could also be throwing someone into the trunk of a car.

 

[Cardinal47]

Intent is best supported with the fact that he knew Mollie's route in advance, he selected a specific less-populated intersection along that route where he intended to accost her, that he circled around that intersection until Mollie arrived, and that he then abducted her. That alone demonstrates that he had intent.

I wonder if he had ever bothered her before this evening?

 

[Bravo]

I don't believe that she threatened him at all. He threatened her. He alleges that she threatened him because he wants to blame her for his imaginary block out that caused him to murder her.

He stalked her, learned her habits and running route, lay in wait for her to be alone on the East boundary of Brooklyn, he abducted her and threw her into his car. He then drove her out of Brooklyn, assaulted her, stabbed her multiple times, and hid her body. He was not interested in chatting with her.

Agree. My best case scenario is she fought so hard and enraged him he didn't have time to assault her. A Gal can hope right? sigh.....

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Thanks, we need to laugh sometime even to just break the misery of this.

Thinking of Mollie's funeral today and her loved ones and community.

Hoping the conviction of her killer goes very quickly.

This article in the NYT has some details I hadn't seen anywhere else about him:

How the Suspect in Mollie Tibbetts’s Death Built a Life in an Iowa Farm Town

 

[The Farm]

And so what if she did threaten him,,, there must have been ILL intent there if she even did which I agree with otto above.
He was after her.

 

[otto]

If proven, will having a past history of following women help argue intent?

If there was a past history of him being a pest and following women, this would have been known prior to Mollie's abduction and murder. All these after the fact claims seem to be about locals thinking "it could have been me."

 

[Al Hoffman]

What is the clinical term for sub-human savage?

Morlock? (Cue H.G. Wells)

Again, sorry, I couldn't resist.

MOO

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I think he dragged her on foot is just a figure of speech and just means he dragged her into the secluded location where he assaulted her. It seems odd that they said on foot but I do think they were referring to him and not Mollie. I believe she was either unconscious or semi conscience as a result of whatever we think he did to subdue her punch, hit with object etc. I think it's possible she may have been partially conscious and struggling. But was it at this time he picked her up over her shoulder or later after she is dead? I dont know and I can't remember the last part the whole question but it is about him coming to I think. He realized she was in the trunk, so this was after the assault and before he took her to the final location? I'm getting the order of things confused but for now I can't even think , I've heard some other interesting scenarios. Unfortunately we have a timeframe during the " blackout" that is hard to fill in.

Or, maybe he was meaning he drug her by the feet??

 

[Cardinal47]

Actually we have no idea what really happened do we. All we have is the statement from the man we think killed Mollie and led us to her body.
He blacked out??? and nobody really knows what happened to her.
Coroner might give us some information once the autopsy is complete. Fitbit and phone, if found, might relay info.

BTW have they found the earphones he said were in his lap when he 'came to'?

 

[feralwriter]

He had a month to come up with a better story. He couldn't. Why?

He knew, when he confessed to police, that when they would soon examine her body that he was about to lead them to, that they would find the stab wounds (on bone). If even through her clothing, the stab holes as evidence how he killed her.

Therefore, MOO, he knew any excuse he could have made (as killers do sometimes, to make themselves look marginally less 'bad') like, "Oh, she fell. It was a terrible accident, but she fell & hit her head and died that way so I wasn't responsible" was out the window. There was no way this was going to come out at all as a tragic accident, in his favor, because the post-mortem wounds would not reflect that. He knew he was well past the excuse of it was all a big misunderstanding. I guess we have the supposed cause of death (sharp instrument of some kind) to 'thank' for that.

I still worry it may have been a head injury- swelling that maybe the ME can't determine now- but I just don't want to go there. Could be simultaneous COD. I really want this guy going away forever (none of this life equals 20 years but out earlier for "good behavior") & for her case to somehow make a difference to women in the world.... in a big way.

 

[Al Hoffman]

You’re right. As of now, there is no known evidence of rape. As this attack was almost certainly sexually motivated, it’s more probable than not, that Mollie was sexually assaulted in some way. There’s a chance that even if she was, we may never know.

Or the State may never be able to charge him with SA, per se, for a number of reasons.