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

[Jaclin]

According to what he told police, he is absolutely not guilty. He had contact with Mollie in Brooklyn, she made him mad, and he lost time until he was at the cornfield. His defense is that he acted without conscious intent, therefore he is not responsible.

actually, he lost time until he came to an intersection. he remembers doing a u turn and driving into the cornfield where he was at just because he likes to sit in secluded corn fields watching corn grow, I guess. then, after reaching the body dump location and watching corn grow, he saw the earbud which meant there was a dead body in his trunk. He is basically saying that he remembers driving into the cornfield to dispose of her body before knowing there was a body in his trunk to dispose.

 

[kpm]

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.

This is my fear

 

[Jaclin]

However the Defense tries to mitigate on behalf of CR; he is going to serve time.

yes, we don't want him to get off on the murder charge, but there are other things he can be charged with where he has admitted to being aware. I'm also wondering that if the defense hasn't seen all the evidence yet, that they might decide another plea is more appropriate once that information comes in. Either way, I hope CRs attorney's fail miserably.

 

[MistyWaters]

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.

I didn’t insinuate his lawyer’s comment to indicate he’s “a very stupid, simple, uneducated foreigner” whatsoever. The information was presented as factual to support their earlier reasoning.

“Chad Frese, one of Bahena Rivera's lawyers, said that since there is a language barrier and his client has about the equivalent of a middle-school education, he wants the arraignment to occur in open court rather than filing a written document so the judge can know that Bahena Rivera understands the charges against him.”
Man charged with murder in Mollie Tibbetts case to be arraigned Wednesday

 

[The Farm]

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.

But we do not know any of that. Who knows what LE found on her phone?

Personally I do not think he did but do think he watched her running on numerous occasions on his trek to the store for treats.
He might have been watching her for months or maybe just weeks.
As far as previous contact I will say no because he most likely knew that he did not stand a chance but he did stand a chance at taking her out, which he did.

 

[Jaclin]

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.

I agree that it seems his attorneys are trying to paint him as an absolute moron that should be pitied. I don't think his education is even relevant. It's not like he has really bad down syndrome with the mental capacity of a 8 year old. He has the capacity of a regular 21 or 24 year-old. His ability to find the value for N has nothing to do with understanding right and wrong and that breaking laws have consequences.

 

[MistyWaters]

actually, he lost time until he came to an intersection. he remembers doing a u turn and driving into the cornfield where he was at just because he likes to sit in secluded corn fields watching corn grow, I guess. then, after reaching the body dump location and watching corn grow, he saw the earbud which meant there was a dead body in his trunk. He is basically saying that he remembers driving into the cornfield to dispose of her body before knowing there was a body in his trunk to dispose.

I must have missed the medical advisory urging people who find a strange earbud in their lap to immediately check for bodies in their trunk.

 

[MistyWaters]

I agree that it seems his attorneys are trying to paint him as an absolute moron that should be pitied. I don't think his education is even relevant. It's not like he has really bad down syndrome with the mental capacity of a 8 year old. He has the capacity of a regular 21 or 24 year-old. His ability to find the value for N has nothing to do with understanding right and wrong and that breaking laws have consequences.

It’s very important for defendants to understand legal proceedings, in fact insuring that is one of the responsibilities of their defence attorneys.

 

[MistyWaters]

But we do not know any of that. Who knows what LE found on her phone?

Personally I do not think he did but do think he watched her running on numerous occasions on his trek to the store for treats.
He might have been watching her for months or maybe just weeks.
As far as previous contact I will say no because he most likely knew that he did not stand a chance but he did stand a chance at taking her out, which he did.

I agree. Unless LE has more recent information, according to this quote any prior contact was not personal aside from him observing her.

"There is nothing that we have come across as of yet that shows they had any type of relationship," he said. "And I don’t mean intimate dating — I mean friendship, acquaintance, what have you."

"He had mentioned, I believe, that he had seen her before. In what context — I don’t know if it was just in passing or had seen her in town somewhere, but it sounded like he at least had recognized her," he added”.
Mollie Tibbetts suspect's past begins to emerge as scrutiny expands

 

[otto]

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.

BBM

Not True!

"Lawyers’ Duties to the Court

• We will not knowingly misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote or miscite facts or authorities in any oral or written communication to the court."

Standards for Professional Conduct - The Iowa State Bar Association

 

[The Farm]

BBM

Not True!

"Lawyers’ Duties to the Court

• We will not knowingly misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote or miscite facts or authorities in any oral or written communication to the court."

Standards for Professional Conduct - The Iowa State Bar Association

But I think they do,,,look at Baez telling the jury that CA's Dad molested her and blah blah,,,,that was all lies.

 

[otto]

But I think they do,,,look at Baez telling the jury that CA's Dad molested her and blah blah,,,,that was all lies.

As I mentioned - different rules for different jurisdictions. All that matters here are the rules according to the Iowa State Bar Association.

In Iowa, lawyers "will not knowingly misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote or miscite facts or authorities in any oral or written communication to the court."

 

[Al Hoffman]

BBM

Not True!

"Lawyers’ Duties to the Court

• We will not knowingly misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote or miscite facts or authorities in any oral or written communication to the court."

Standards for Professional Conduct - The Iowa State Bar Association

AND this is where the word bender part comes in. If the Client says to his Defence attorney that "The Aliens did it" then that attorney is obligated to present that to the Jury. It is not a lie. It is an alternative narrative to counter the Prosecution's narrative. Surprisingly, two versions of the truth. Someone must be lying. The Defence attorney is only repeating what the Client told him. The attorney is not lying. And this is true of any alternative narrative the Defense my present.

Beyond that one paragraph you cite are other canons of law, such as attorney client privilege.

By your logic, if the Defense attorney knows that the defendant is guilty (as the Client told him so), then you are saying that the attorney can't say in open court that his client is not guilty, as you would consider that a misrepresentation of a the fact that the defendant did it. The system does not work that way.

The Defence has an obligation to present the most vigorous defence possible, for his client. Even if the attorney knows that CR put the body in the trunk, he is free to present an alternative narrative that some 3rd party did it and the murder, even though his client has already told him no, I did it all.

The Defence attorney does not lie, he simply presents an alternative narrative of the facts in play. What would now be called an alternative truth. The suspect's guilt is not a fact until a verdict is rendered, until then it is simply a matter of debate. Any "facts" presented by the prosecution can be verbally denied, maligned, or discredited by the defence (within the limits of credulity), if they can't be outright disproved as fact. No lies, simply an alternative narrative.

Though, at the end of the trial the defence attorney can truthfully say that I never said that my client was innocent, I only said he was not guilty. The two terms are not identical. This is why attorneys practice word bending as a craft.

<modsnip: rude>

 

[otto]

AND this is where the word bender part comes in. If the Client says to his Defence attorney that "The Aliens did it" then that attorney is obligated to present that to the Jury. It is not a lie. It is an alternative narrative to counter the Prosecution's narrative. Surprisingly, two versions of the truth. Someone must be lying. The Defence attorney is only repeating what the Client told him. The attorney is not lying. And this is true of any alternative narrative the Defense my present.

Beyond that one paragraph you cite are other canons of law, such as attorney client privilege.

By your logic, if the Defense attorney knows that the defendant is guilty (as the Client told him so), then you are saying that the attorney can't say in open court that his client is not guilty, as you would consider that a misrepresentation of a the fact that the defendant did it. The system does not work that way.

The Defence has an obligation to present the most vigorous defence possible, for his client. Even if the attorney knows that CR put the body in the trunk, he is free to present an alternative narrative that some 3rd party did it and the murder, even though his client has already told him no, I did it all.

The Defence attorney does not lie, he simply presents an alternative narrative of the facts in play. What would now be called an alternative truth. The suspect's guilt is not a fact until a verdict is rendered, until then it is simply a matter of debate. Any "facts" presented by the prosecution can be verbally denied, maligned, or discredited by the defence (within the limits of credulity), if they can't be outright disproved as fact. No lies, simply an alternative narrative.

Though, at the end of the trial the defence attorney can truthfully say that I never said that my client was innocent, I only said he was not guilty. The two terms are not identical. This is why attorneys practice word bending as a craft.

Please stay out of court Otto, as your need to reveal the truth will send someone to jail. Hopefully not someone who's side you're supposed to be on.

Lawyers are professionals. They can lose the right to practice law if they act like idiots. Real world situation is that, in Iowa, lawyers have to abide by the code of conduct of their profession and they are not obligated to be ridiculous simply because their client tells them to be ridiculous.

I'm curious: why the objection to the fact that in Iowa, lawyers "will not knowingly misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote or miscite facts or authorities in any oral or written communication to the court." I'm the messenger, nothing more.

 

[SteveP]

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.[/QUOTE

Delete

 

[Bravo]

Hey all. I see the thread is still going. I check in almost daily. Waiting for Justice for Mollie. As we all are. I think of her every day.

 

[SteveP]

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.

Respectfully, I don't believe the suspect will have the final say in electing his defense, unless his attorneys are the simpletons some think they are painting him to be. And just because an automatism defense apparently exists, it does not mean that his attorneys will think it is in his best interest to try to use it. And I agree with several others here who believe it would not be successful, especially in the context of everything else we know about this crime. JMO

 

[Jaclin]

Lawyers are professionals. They can lose the right to practice law if they act like idiots. Real world situation is that, in Iowa, lawyers have to abide by the code of conduct of their profession and they are not obligated to be ridiculous simply because their client tells them to be ridiculous.

I'm curious: why the objection to the fact that in Iowa, lawyers "will not knowingly misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote or miscite facts or authorities in any oral or written communication to the court." I'm the messenger, nothing more.

An ethical person would honor that code, for sure. Honestly, I don't assume anyone who takes a client that has admitted to stalking a woman, putting her in the trunk, and disposing of her body in a cornfield is an ethical person. I do think there are some that break the rules and don't get caught. How CR's attorneys play the game remains to be seen.

 

[Deleted member 718]

But I think they do,,,look at Baez telling the jury that CA's Dad molested her and blah blah,,,,that was all lies.

Yes. Take the Danielle Van Dam case where the attorney knew his client David Westerfield was guilty. That didn't stop him from saying her parents could be responsible by having orgies with strangers in their home. Saying perhaps one of the strangers murdered Danielle. Anything to plant a seed of doubt in the juries mind.

The two farm workers who took off after CR was arrested will most likely play a role in his defense

 

[otto]

Respectfully, I don't believe the suspect will elect his defense, unless his attorneys are the simpletons some think they are painting him to be. And just because an automatism defense apparently exists, it does not mean that his attorneys will think it is in his best interest to try to use it. And I agree with several others here who believe it would not be successful, especially in the context of everything else we know about this crime. JMO

It's certainly a long shot defense, but I can't think of any other defense that is consistent with "blocked" "memory" - unless he introduces some sort of mental defect. Am I missing something?