IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #42

[glamourkitty1922]

How is seeing her once before the murder considered to be stalking?

The post said the night before. That makes 2 known times he stalked his prey. He admitted it.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

He ran after her, hunted her down. That is stalking.

Oh. I thought the OP was saying it was a pattern of previous behavior that occurred before the day of the murder that constituted stalking.

Your saying something different. JMO

 

[Confusion]

I'm sure he didn't come right out and say she was responsible for getting him upset, that's what I mean by it being subtle. I'm also pretty sure he wasn't as polite as you and say that he "did not exercise self control."

I probably wouldn't say it that way, but I would feel that way. Of course, I was always the responsible one in my family - whenever anything went wrong, I was the one found responsible

 

[glamourkitty1922]

I can't pretend to know what he thinks, but him killing someone is certainly not proof that he didn't know killing was wrong. Lots of people do things they know are wrong everyday - lying being the biggest example.

Why would you think lying is wrong? I say good morning, when the day sucks and I know it. It's a lie, but I don't think it's wrong. Murder is ALWAYS wrong. There is no gray area when it comes to murder.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The post said the night before. That makes 2 known times he stalked his prey. He admitted it.

Wait. Now your saying that seeing someone in public is the same as stalking them?

I don't understand that.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

Oh. I thought the OP was saying it was a pattern of previous behavior that occurred before the day of the murder that constituted stalking.

Your saying something different. JMO

Not really. The monster did admit to watching her the day before. So, that means two days of stalking.

 

[MistyWaters]

Her threat to call the police got him upset and angry. In his mind, she is the reason he got so mad. Although subtle, this is the perfect example of blaming the victim.

I think that’s reading between the lines way down there.

What was written in the affidavit is a summary, but not a transcribed interview.

CR acknowledged Mollie said she was going to call the police.
Maybe CR got mad because Mollie rejected him.

If we are to conclude that’s an example of victim blaming then we must also believe that females are not entitled to say no or make choices with whom they associate with. Of course Mollie had every right to tell the guy to buzz off! Who would blame her for that?

That’s why it’s not victim blaming to discuss it whatsoever, we all know Mollie did the right thing. Nobody really cares who CR blames for what.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

Wait. Now your saying that seeing someone in public is the same as stalking them?

I don't understand that.

If you follow someone, even in public, it is stalking. He saw her, he admits to seeing her. He returns to the area to find her the next day. He hunts her down and murders her. So, yes, he was stalking her from the moment he first saw her.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

He had fake documents. Why would LE go further in investigating? He was on a mission to rape and thats what he did. Its sad he felt he had to cover that up but again, its all about him and his desires.. IMO

With extensive resources now at their disposal since 9/11, LE is certain to go as far as reasonable possible to verify identity. Did CR possess a driver's license? If it was assigned to a 'fake' name, is it the name of some other, real person? I believe it is; how else could it have been accepted by SS? Since 9/11, I assume it's become more difficult to create a false identity. Not impossible, but certainly more difficult. U.S. don't play. I imagine CR (and many others) get as far as they do with 'help', and that includes from individuals and companies which shall remain out of this discussion.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Not really. The monster did admit to watching her the day before. So, that means two days of stalking.

Now I'm really confused.

He admitted to watching her or seeing her?

 

[ChuckMaureen]

they probably would have just came and talked to him and told him to leave her alone. his identity probably wouldn't have been questioned the first time.

Really? With more than a few missing or murdered women and children in Iowa?

 

[Deleted member 718]

He reported that he saw her when he was driving around the night before as well as circling around right before the murder. In my opinion he was watching her.

MsBetsy, I'm asking for a msm link please. I've never heard he saw her while driving around the night before. tia

 

[Jim G]

He blamed the victim (her rejection) as the cause of his cornfield violence. That's victim blaming.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

If you follow someone, even in public, it is stalking. He saw her, he admits to seeing her. He returns to the area to find her the next day. He hunts her down and murders her. So, yes, he was stalking her from the moment he first saw her.

Now you're saying he followed her before the day that he killed her?

I never heard that before.

 

[MsBetsy]

Do you have a link to support that? Also, if that is true, seeing her once the day before and then the next day doesn't sound like "stalking for two days". Moo.

Its just my opinion that he had no other reason to be in Brooklnn, driving around streets that she was jogging on, the day before unless he was watching out for her. I'm not saying he was following her around other than that. It would make sense if the murder was premeditated, that he might be considering which was the perfect moment. After all, he did end up picking the perfect time, when she was in an isolated area, towards the end of her run, when she was probably exhausted. In my mind there is no reason why he would have seen her the night before other than to see her on purpose. He admitted to police he had seen her the night before. It's either in an article or the police statement. I'm not sure what the link is but it has also been mentioned by others, so maybe someone else knows?

 

[MyBelle]

I expect CR having been born in Mexico (assumed) and allegedly having significantly negative experiences there and risking his existence coming to the States illegally (allegedly) and living under possible threat of discovery for many years could have skewed his sensibilities to a point where he could not live what we label a 'normal' existence. This is not looking for excuses for his behavior, but it is looking for potential reasoning that may describe what he's become. If we assume all this is true, CR will have lived his entire adult life maintaining some level of fear and nervousness; that is significant.

How so? CR is the one who stalked and approached and killed Mollie. How are his actions reflective of someone who has "fear and nervousness"????

 

[Confusion]

Its just my opinion that he had no other reason to be in Brooklnn, driving around streets that she was jogging on, the day before unless he was watching out for her. I'm not saying he was following her around other than that. It would make sense if the murder was premeditated, that he might be considering which was the perfect moment. After all, he did end up picking the perfect time, when she was in an isolated area, towards the end of her run, when she was probably exhausted. In my mind there is no reason why he would have seen her the night before other than to see her on purpose. He admitted to police he had seen her the night before. It's either in an article or the police statement. I'm not sure what the link is but it has also been mentioned by others, so maybe someone else knows?

Didn't he have to go that way to go see his daughter? I thought I read that she lived out on 385th Ave, but I may be mistaken. Everything is kind of running together. MOO

 

[MsBetsy]

Now you're saying he followed her before the day that he killed her?

I never heard that before.

I think that's exactly what he was doing too.... Unless maybe he was just looking for the ice cream parlor if that was along her jogging route, but I firmly believe he was in the process of planning his assault.

 

[MsBetsy]

Didn't he have to go that way to o see his daughter? I thought I read that she lived out on 385th Ave, but I may be mistaken. Everything is kind of running together. MOO

I haven't heard that, no. I think she lived near him.

 

[Deleted member 718]

Its just my opinion that he had no other reason to be in Brooklnn, driving around streets that she was jogging on, the day before unless he was watching out for her. I'm not saying he was following her around other than that. It would make sense if the murder was premeditated, that he might be considering which was the perfect moment. After all, he did end up picking the perfect time, when she was in an isolated area, towards the end of her run, when she was probably exhausted. In my mind there is no reason why he would have seen her the night before other than to see her on purpose. He admitted to police he had seen her the night before. It's either in an article or the police statement. I'm not sure what the link is but it has also been mentioned by others, so maybe someone else knows?

MsBetsy, I've never heard he followed her the day before. It's not in the police statement or in an article. Maybe edit your posts before it's taken as fact. tia.