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

[TL4S]

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.

He admitted she threatened to call police if he did't leave her alone, and then she ran away. Him chasing her was intent.

 

[otto]

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

Clearly he stalked her, but it's most likely that she didn't realize it. I have read many claims that someone was on someone's facebook page, but in real life, other than her murder, there's no known connection between Mollie and her murderer.

"He and Tibbetts have no known connections other than that Rivera allegedly told investigators that he saw her running previously."

Medical examiner says Mollie Tibbetts died from stab wounds

 

[Al Hoffman]

When I was in school it was the DSM III now i feel really old lol

Tempus fugit baby!

 

[Deleted member 39678]

This link below takes you to Iowa State Bar proforma for Juror Instructions. Rivera was charged under section 700.1 Murder In The First Degree - Premeditation, Willfulness, Deliberation - Elements“. So yes, it indicates a Judge has discretion in asking a jury to consider whatever lesser charges that are appropriate to the situation.
“If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is guilty of Murder In The First Degree. If the State has failed to prove any one of the elements, the defendant is not guilty of Murder In The First Degree (and you will then consider the charge of __________________ explained in Instruction No. ______).“
https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iowab...files/Linked_12.2017_IA_Criminal_J.pdf#page65

I don't believe the judge has the discretion. The lesser included offenses must meet the requirements and if they do the judge can't disallow them. Check this portion of the appeal that I linked. I snipped the case precedents.

Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.6(3) requires the trial court to instruct on lesser-included offenses, “even though such instructions have not been requested.” Notwithstanding the trial court’s duty in this regard,
we have a long-standing requirement that, to preserve error on a trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser-included offense, “a defendant must request a lesser-included offense instruction or object to the court’s failure to give it.”

A corollary of this requirement is the rule that “a defendant may expressly waive a lesser-included offense instruction.” . Even when a defendant waives submission of lesser included offenses, the State retains the right to demand submission of a lesser offense. , this court recognized that the State may also have “a legitimate interest in having a lesser-included offense submitted to the jury,” and therefore, the defendant does not have “veto power . . . to block submission of any lesser-
included offense which the accused does not fancy.”

So the defendant can waive including the lesser included's (which happened in this case) but the State (prosecution) can overrule that wavier. JMO

https://cases.justia.com/iowa/supreme-court/050883-(2010-03-19).pdf

 

[otto]

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'?

We know that he stalked her and lay in wait. We know that he stabbed her multiple times, that he hid the body. We know quite a bit about what happened to Mollie on July 18.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

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.

I agree. Re your last sentence, the DA has charged CR with first degree murder, which in Iowa carries a sentence of "life in prison without the possibility of parole", so it's very unlikely IMO that he would ever get out of prison on a reduced sentence.

 

[TL4S]

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."

Do most women honestly contact police every time some guy follows and creeps them out?

 

[feralwriter]

Mollie was 20 not 22. fyi

 

[Al Hoffman]

No they have not. It is my opine that was likely his intent. I have never stated he did. I don't think it a stretch if a female is abducted and left in a cornfield dead she may have been. It will remain to be seen if there is enough evidence to support.

...and may depend on the time of occurrence of a possible SA based on FitBit data and other findings. Indeed, they may never be able to charge CR with rape. Still, at the end of the day it may not matter if the State can successfuly prosecute the Murder One charge.

 

[Bravo]

Whatever the scenario is/was the fact that he did murder Mollie does show intent. Whether to subdue, a fight or to cover up an assault. Intent is evident in this case. He always had the choice to let her go at any point. He did not.

 

[The Farm]

I went back and looked at the pictures of the tow truck towing both vehicles when were all trying to figure out the plate MN. verses Iowa thing.
And it hit me that was most likely the last thing she saw was that black Chevy and his ugly face. I can not wait until we know what was found in the car.

 

[Bravo]

I went back and looked at the pictures of the tow truck towing both vehicles when were all trying to figure out the plate MN. verses Iowa thing.
And it hit me that was most likely the last thing she saw was that black Chevy and his ugly face. I can not wait until we know what was found in the car.

Agree. I'm sure there was lots of evidence in that car. I also wonder if he was stupid enough to leave items in it.

 

[SteveP]

...and may depend on the time of occurrence of a possible SA based on FitBit data and other findings. Indeed, they may never be able to charge CR with rape. Still, at the end of the day it may not matter if the State can successfuly prosecute the Murder One charge.

...And tbh, if and when this goes to trial, even if it cannot be determined whether she had been sexually assaulted, due to condition of her remains, I do not believe it would be difficult to get a jury to arrive at that belief, if the prosecutors lay out everything they do know and say "do you believe this defendant did all of these other things, but did not sexually assault this woman he had stalked and attacked". Most of us here have taken that next step to believing there was a SA, I think. I believe a jury would arrive at the same conclusion. JMO

 

[Cardinal47]

We know that he stalked her and lay in wait. We know that he stabbed her multiple times, that he hid the body. We know quite a bit about what happened to Mollie on July 18.

I meant as far as the actual attack it's self. We don't know the scuffle that ensued. We just know what he is telling us about what led up to her murder.

Personally I don't think he lay in wait. I have always thought he disabled her by hitting her with the car.

 

[Mica]

Short Video..

Family and friends attend funeral for Mollie Tibbetts

 

[Al Hoffman]

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 think, at minimum, intent would clearly start when he first started to follow her in his car, perhaps before.

 

[Cardinal47]

Do most women honestly contact police every time some guy follows and creeps them out?

No

 

[Cardinal47]

I'm looking at a postponement on Friday. What say you?

A preliminary hearing could be postponed for many different reasons such as inclimate weather, a judge was not available, or the State requested a postponement.

 

[otto]

I guess what I was thinking was this. I'm kind of a scaredy cat and first of all would never run in some isolated place. Second if I did and had a close encounter...some guy driving by and cat calling me I would NEVER return.

And believe me I am not blaming the victim at all. She had a right to run any place she wanted to run. He had no right to say or do anything to her.

I meant as far as the actual attack it's self. We don't know the scuffle that ensued. We just know what he is telling us about what led up to her murder.

Personally I don't think he lay in wait. I have always thought he disabled her by hitting her with the car.

In it's simplest form:

"In criminal law, lying in wait refers to the act of hiding and waiting for an individual with the intent to kill that person or inflict serious bodily harm to that person."

He knew her route, he drove to a location on her route that was less-populated, he circled around waiting for her to arrive, when she arrived, he pounced. He did murder her. He was lying in wait.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

...And tbh, if and when this goes to trial, even if it cannot be determined whether she had been sexually assaulted, due to condition of her remains, I do not believe it would be difficult to get a jury to arrive at that belief, if the prosecutors lay out everything they do know and say "do you believe this defendant did all of these other things, but did not sexually assault this woman he had stalked and attacked". Most of us here have taken that next step to believing there was a SA, I think. I believe a jury would arrive at the same conclusion. JMO

The prosecution will have to have presented evidence that supports a sexual assault before making a statement like that to the jury.

I hope the jury uses evidence to convict and not just the words of a prosecutor. JMO