Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #46

[Charliegizmo49]

You’re correct. I made mistake. Format confusing to my brain today.

I use Holiday Inn Express.

And I’m NOT THE MOST INTERESTING PERSON IN THE WORLD!!!

 

[Al Hoffman]

I think you're right, but something about portraying a cunning murderer as a simpleton doesn't sit well with me. My sense is that his lawyers are already laying the groundwork to create a facade of Rivera as a gentle, happy, kind, simpleton who doesn't speak English, and who was victimized when Mollie made him mad and triggered an episode of automatism.

In reality, I suspect he dropped out of grade 10 to illegally immigrate to Iowa, that he accosted Mollie in Brooklyn and, when coercion didn't work, he resorted to violence East of Brooklyn. I think he lay in wait at Boundary and Middle Str, that it was always his intention to abduct her, and that he had pre-planned where he was assault and murder her. I think his automatism defense is rather brilliant for someone with a 5th grade education.

You mean like Lennie in "Of Mice and Men"? (Not my original post, another up thread suggested this before me). In that narrative, Lennie was profoundly developmentally delayed, and he killed from a profound sense of ignorance, from not knowing better, and simply not remembering that if you squeezed a living thing too hard it will die. Even George acted from a motive of agapae.

CR does not appear to have any significant intelligence deficits, and appears to have operated from lust (and by your previous narrative) cunning, guile and planning. Somethings a Lennie could have never done. Over a period of years, CR courted and married a girl, fathered a child, drove a car, and successfully lived a double life as part of a underground culture and economy, brazenly in the open. Are you implying that the Defence will present a narrative that could even include the Uncle, who worked on the farm, as the Latino George to CR's Lennie? If CR was that much of a simpleton, someone would have had to guide him at every step of his life. That pig won't fly in front of an Iowa jury!

Nor will an Automatism defence. Per his released confession, CR has already admitted to his intent to peruse MT with implied ill intent. I do not think that it is a major leap for any reasonable and prudent juror to see this as a plan to abduct and cause harm to MT. Regardless of what CR may have done in a supposed fugue state, the assault he initiated while compos mentis (by his own words) directly lead to MT's death. The Felony Murder Rule allows for a Murder One charge and conviction based on the lesser included charge if the victim's death is a result of that initiating crime.

Simply stated, CR brought the dog that killed MT to the rural highway where she died, he unleashed it, set it on her and she died as a result. He is guilty of her murder, even if he can't recall doing it.

Many apparently confuse formal education with native intelligence. Poncho Villa, the Generalismo who helped to lead a revolutionary army that overthrew a government had little education past literacy as a teen. He had to quit school to sharecrop and help his mother after his father died. He became a bandit at 16, after tracking down and killing a man that raped his sister. The U.S. sent General "Black Jack" Perishing to deal with him, and the U.S. Army studied Villas tactics, as he was a brilliant military field tactatian. A bandit with less than a 6th grade education. His early life not so different from CR's early life.

 

[Kensie]

You never really know with a jury. Two trials - both ending with 1 person holding out on Jody Arias. To me the evidence was there - premeditation but I was not on the jury.

 

[otto]

Where is it stated an Automatism Defense results in complete exoneration? It seems to me if that type of defense were successful based on proven medical history, prosecution under either 2nd degree murder or manlaughter charges would still apply.

“Generally, Second Degree Murder is similar to First Degree Murder but without a specific intent or premeditation component.”
Homicide - Polk County Attorney's Office

If you read about the automatism defense, you will see how it works and why it results in a complete exoneration.

 

[otto]

You mean like Lennie in "Of Mice and Men"? (Not my original post, another up thread suggested this before me). In that narrative, Lennie was profoundly developmentally delayed, and he killed from a profound sense of ignorance, from not knowing better, and simply not remembering that if you squeezed a living thing too hard it will die. Even George acted from a motive of agapae.

CR does not appear to have any significant intelligence deficits, and appears to have operated from lust (and by your previous narrative) cunning, guile and planning. Somethings a Lennie could have never done. Over a period of years, CR courted and married a girl, fathered a child, drove a car, and successfully lived a double life as part of a underground culture and economy, brazenly in the open. Are you implying that the Defence will present a narrative that could even include the Uncle, who worked on the farm, as the Latino George to CR's Lennie? If CR was that much of a simpleton, someone would have had to guide him at every step of his life. That pig won't fly in front of an Iowa jury!

Nor will an Automatism defence. Per his released confession, CR has already admitted to his intent to peruse MT with implied ill intent. I do not think that it is a major leap for any reasonable and prudent juror to see this as a plan to abduct and cause harm to MT. Regardless of what CR may have done in a supposed fugue state, the assault he initiated while compos mentis (by his own words) directly lead to MT's death. The Felony Murder Rule allows for a Murder One charge and conviction based on the lesser included charge if the victim's death is a result of that initiating crime.

Simply stated, CR brought the dog that killed MT to the rural highway where she died, he unleashed it, set it on her and she died as a result. He is guilty of her murder, even if he can't recall doing it.

Many apparently confuse formal education with native intelligence. Poncho Villa, the Generalismo who helped to lead a revolutionary army that overthrew a government had little education past literacy as a teen. He had to quit school to sharecrop and help his mother after his father died. He became a bandit at 16, after tracking down and killing a man that raped his sister. The U.S. sent General "Black Jack" Perishing to deal with him, and the U.S. Army studied Villas tactics, as he was a brilliant military field tactatian. A bandit with less than a 6th grade education. His early life not so different from CR's early life.

Unless rejection from a woman caused a memory blanking automatism event in the past, it cannot be argued that he should have known that rejection from a woman would trigger an act where was not conscious of what he was doing.

 

[Confusion]

This trial is at least a year out.

All evidence is not even to the prosecutor yet.

Unless he waives his right to a speedy trial, it doesn't matter much if the prosecution is ready or not. I think it's likely he will so his attorneys have more time to dig up some kind of evidence to help him out, but otherwise it has to start within the guidelines for a speedy trial. I've heard different numbers for a criminal trial, one said 70 days from arraignment, one said 90 and one said 120. I still haven't gotten a straight answer about what happens if that right is violated; I know the judge could dismiss the charges, but I still have no idea if that's with or without prejudice. I would hope he wouldn't get off completely because the prosecution needed more time to collect evidence (that should be pretty well done before arraignment.) MOO

 

[Charliegizmo49]

Unless he waives his right to a speedy trial, it doesn't matter much if the prosecution is ready or not. I think it's likely he will so his attorneys have more time to dig up some kind of evidence to help him out, but otherwise it has to start within the guidelines for a speedy trial. I've heard different numbers for a criminal trial, one said 70 days from arraignment, one said 90 and one said 120. I still haven't gotten a straight answer about what happens if that right is violated; I know the judge could dismiss the charges, but I still have no idea if that's with or without prejudice. I would hope he wouldn't get off completely because the prosecution needed more time to collect evidence (that should be pretty well done before arraignment.) MOO

The Iowa rules of criminal court were posted a bout 2-4 pages back. I’ll try to find.

And here it is simplified.


https://www.iowacourts.gov/static/media/cms/E0402_4AB079FBEE8C6.pdf

 

[CarnegieHall]

If you read about the automatism defense, you will see how it works and why it results in a complete exoneration.

Wouldn’t the part where he realizes there’s a body in the trunk and he leaves her covered by cornstalks be a problem to the automatism defense? He didn’t block out that part. Then they would have to go with another defence for the part after he “comes to”. Besides being rarely used as a defence (the automatism) IMO I think it behooves the defence to go with one singular strategy inside of two.

 

[otto]

Wouldn’t the part where he realizes there’s a body in the trunk and he leaves her covered by cornstalks be a problem to the automatism defense? He didn’t block out that part. Then they would have to go with another defence for the part after he “comes to”. Besides being rarely used as a defence (the automatism) IMO I think it behooves the defence to go with one singular strategy inside of two.

When he came to, he realized there was a dead woman in the trunk of his car and he panicked so he put her in the cornfield. He'd rather be convicted of doing the wrong thing with a body than committing wilful murder.

 

[Al Hoffman]

And that "car payment" isn't cheap. Sometimes as much as $3000-$4000. I have never understood how they can pay that.

You eat a lot of beans, tortillas and rice! You live many to one dwelling. You work long hours till you pay your debt off, then keep on doing the same!

 

[Confusion]

The Iowa rules of criminal court were posted a bout 2-4 pages back. I’ll try to find.

And here it is simplified.


https://www.iowacourts.gov/static/media/cms/E0402_4AB079FBEE8C6.pdf

Thanks. That means they have 90 days if he doesn't waive his right, and I think they probably have enough evidence to convict him anyway. Not waiving his right to a speedy trial would be more likely to hurt the defense in this case than the prosecution. MOO

 

[Al Hoffman]

Not at all. Read about the Automatism Defense. It has nothing to do with being insane. It is a defense that, if successful, results in a complete exoneration.

"Automatism is an act done by a person who is not conscious of what s/he is doing. It can be an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what s/he is doing, such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or while sleep-walking. Absence of volition in respect of the act involved is always a defense to a crime.
...

Automatism is behavior performed in a state of mental unconsciousness apparently occurring without will, purpose, or reasoned intention."

Automatism Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

That pig won't fly in front of an Iowa jury.

 

[Al Hoffman]

It is never a lawyer's job to distort reality.

Oh, contraire mon ami!

It is the PRIMARY duty, when necessary, of the defence to distort reality to fit the narative that the client needs the Jury to believe. It is not the defense's job to reach a finding of truth, but only to plant enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the Jury so that they will acquit the defendant.

I once read a Science Fiction story about a race of sentient bears who liked to argue as a pass time, to determine the absolute truth about things. The closest phrase they had in their language to describe a Human attorney was "word bender". This because the Human attorney was so "slippery" with the truth in bending words, compared to their need for absolutes. (I believe that it was written by an attorney).

And that is exactly what an attorney is expected to do for a client, to bend words to fit the client's needs. The absolute truth of the matter may be another thing entirely!

When I testified in open court or gave a deposition as an expert witness (many times), I told my version of the truth, the opposing council would attempt to make me say or agree to his version of the truth. Who's truth would rule was determined by the Judge or a Jury. And I have heard opposing counsel tell some whoppers of a "lie" in court, as part of their job.

 

[MistyWaters]

You never really know with a jury. Two trials - both ending with 1 person holding out on Jody Arias. To me the evidence was there - premeditation but I was not on the jury.

What commonly occurs with high profile cases is for months or even years a lot of information gets circulated by SM and the media in advance of the trial. Some of it may not be true at all or it might but not meet the rules of evidence. Often basic facts are overridden by broad assumptions and speculation.

As a result folks who follow the case generally form opinions well in advance of the actual trial based on absolutely everything they have learned, believing the jury’s verdict will be reached accordingly. But the actual evidence heard by the jury during a trial is often quite different than what’s circulated in the public realm.

 

[otto]

That pig won't fly in front of an Iowa jury.

I think it will fly in front of any jury if it is a properly constructed argument. Regardless, that seems to the be defense that the suspect has elected.

 

[otto]

Oh, contraire mon ami!

It is the PRIMARY duty, when necessary, of the defence to distort reality to fit the narative that the client needs the Jury to believe. It is not the defense's job to reach a finding of truth, but only to plant enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the Jury so that they will acquit the defendant.

I once read a Science Fiction story about a race of sentient bears who liked to argue as a pass time, to determine the absolute truth about things. The closest phrase they had in their language to describe a Human attorney was "word bender". This because the Human attorney was so "slippery" with the truth in bending words, compared to their need for absolutes. (I believe that it was written by an attorney).

And that is exactly what an attorney is expected to do for a client, to bend words to fit the client's needs. The absolute truth of the matter may be another thing entirely!

When I testified in open court or gave a deposition as an expert witness (many times), I told my version of the truth, the opposing council would attempt to make me say or agree to his version of the truth. Who's truth would rule was determined by the Judge or a Jury. And I have heard opposing counsel tell some whoppers of a "lie" in court, as part of their job.

Clearly that depends on the jurisdiction of the lawyer. In some places, lawyers can only present the facts. In other places, such as Casey Anthony's backyard, the truth doesn't matter.

Are lawyers in Iowa allowed to introduce imaginary scenarios that are unrelated to fact, or are they required to present nothing more than fact?

 

[Al Hoffman]

Wow on the not guilty. So is he saying he had temporary insanity??

No, he is saying that he is not guilty. Let the state prove that he is. There is no obligation for the defence or CR to say anything more, ever. Let the State make its case. The defence can respond or speak out if they feel a need to do so, but are not obligated to do so. It is a beautiful system to watch in motion. Two versions of the truth walk in, one walks out!

 

[Jaclin]

BBM
“Since this is a class A felony for a homicide, I want it to be on the record so there’s no confusion whatsoever," Frese told the paper. "Because his education is about a fifth- or sixth-grade education in the country of Mexico."
Mollie Tibbetts' accused killer faces arraignment Wednesday in Iowa court

“A review of the suspect’s social media shows he wrote that he “studied at PREPARATORIA 35,” and went to “en la escuela de la vida.”
Cristhian Rivera Posted Gun Pic, Selfies on Facebook | Heavy.com

So on the FB referenced above, CR is claiming he had both high school and college education but his lawyers say it was grade five or six. He used what is possibly his real name on SM but his employers knew him by a fraudent identity as he was in the country illegally. It’s still unknown whether he was born in 1994 or 1997.

Eveything about his life centres on deception and deceit. As a result the line between reality and his self-created fiction had to have become blurred.

Based on that, my theory regarding motive is CR convinced himself Mollie was interested in a relationship with him. When she rebuked him “leave me alone” he flew into a violent rage because in his mind, she had no right not to follow the deluded script he’d already created. Sometimes referred to as the Fatal Attraction Syndrome. JMO

"I can't really speak to you about the motive," Rahn said. "I can just tell you it seems that he followed her and seemed to be drawn to her on that particular day and for whatever reason he chose to abduct her."
Cristhian Rivera: Suspect in Mollie Tibbetts' killing gave false ID to employer - CNN

"en la escuela de la vida" just means he learned from the "school of life". I tried to make sense of Preparatoria 35. Preparatoria is normally high school levels 10-12. MOO If he actually attended preparatoria, then he has more than a 6th grade Mexican education...unless his attorney is trying to imply that a 10th grade education in Mexico is equivalent to a 5th or 6th grade education here. I have no idea.
I get the whole deluded script thing, but there is no indication that CR was interested in MT prior to that night. I would think it would take more than a day or two for such a delusion to develop to such a degree as to either kill or commit suicide over. I think he would have been sending her messages and leaving voicemails long before it got to that point. I think CR would have been investigated immediately if he was showing signs of being obsessed with MT. MOO

 

[otto]

"en la escuela de la vida" just means he learned from the "school of life". I tried to make sense of Preparatoria 35. Preparatoria is normally high school levels 10-12. MOO If he actually attended preparatoria, then he has more than a 6th grade Mexican education...unless his attorney is trying to imply that a 10th grade education in Mexico is equivalent to a 5th or 6th grade education here. I have no idea.
I get the whole deluded script thing, but there is no indication that CR was interested in MT prior to that night. I would think it would take more than a day or two for such a delusion to develop to such a degree as to either kill or commit suicide over. I think he would have been sending her messages and leaving voicemails long before it got to that point. I think CR would have been investigated immediately if he was showing signs of being obsessed with MT. MOO

His first lawyer claimed that he had a middle school education. I think this lawyer was already manipulating information with this claim. I think that Rivera did complete Middle School and he was enrolled in High School (Preparatoria 35), but he did not complete Preparatoria 35. I think he is a high school drop out.

By suggesting that he has only completed a middle school education, some think that means grade 7, and now his new lawyers think that means grade 5. Perhaps in a couple of months, we'll learn that he only completed kindergarten.

It's interesting that his lawyers want the public to believe that Rivera is a very stupid, simple, uneducated foreigner. I'm curious why they need him to be stupid.

 

[Al Hoffman]

Clearly that depends on the jurisdiction of the lawyer. In some places, lawyers can only present the facts. In other places, such as Casey Anthony's backyard, the truth doesn't matter.

Are lawyers in Iowa allowed to introduce imaginary scenarios that are unrelated to fact, or are they required to present nothing more than fact?

A defense attorney can introduce any fiction that, in his professional opinion, best meets his client's needs. He can say that Aliens did it, but that could lead to an incompetent defence appeal of a conviction, and the Judge may say something. But, if the client insists that the Aliens did it defense is the one he wants, and a psych eval says he is competent to decide so, the Grays did it is the way to go. The defence can also sit in court and say nothing, as it has NO obligation to present any facts at all. That obligation is entirely on the State.

At one time in Texas, there was an affirmative defence to murder that the victim needed shooting like any mad dog, and any member of the jury would have done the same thing in the defendant's shoes.