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

[Charliegizmo49]

The Case in Florida——

Mother was just charged for lying to police and causing them to issue an Amber alert. Prosecutors estimated for 87 HOURS of searching while Jordan was dead in the woods at the hand of the mother, city and state spent $500,000.00.

That’s $5,747.00/hr.

Mollie was missing for 840 hours

840x $5,747.00 = $4,827,000.00 for 35 app days*

Numbers are not exact but fair estimations.

All the time watching a community suffer

A State and Nation cry

A family and friends devastated.

Justice can’t come soon enough.

*Dies not include any post arrest costs such as incarceration, trial, post arrest investigation. Mental health counseling for family, friends, searchers and others.

Estimate for trial

$1,000,000.00 +-

My guess, the State of Iowa will have spent nearly $6,000,000.00 by trial.

And imagine how many poverty stricken families that would feed and house.

 

[tmar]

You are correct the blocked out period is between chasing her and finding the earbud then he remembers she was in the trunk. He did not admit to throwing her in there, didn't say if she was alive or dead, etc. So many gaps in the story.

As a few Posts above, have stated Rahn, stated after chasing her, he tackled her.
So he remembered tackling her also.

 

[Confusion]

As a few Posts above, have stated Rahn, stated after chasing her, he tackled her.
So he remembered tackling her also.

Is there a link somewhere to Rahn saying that CR admitted to chasing her and tackling her? I'm pretty sure I remember him saying that she ran away and he chased her, but I was sure he (Rahn) just said he assumed he (CR) tackled her. It's really getting hard to keep facts straight in my mind, it's not that I don't believe it was said. TIA

 

[tmar]

Is there a link somewhere to Rahn saying that CR admitted to chasing her and tackling her? I'm pretty sure I remember him saying that she ran away and he chased her, but I was sure he (Rahn) just said he assumed he (CR) tackled her. It's really getting hard to keep facts straight in my mind, it's not that I don't believe it was said. TIA

Hi Confusion.
I read this here, a few Posts back: 425, 426.

 

[Mica]

Is there a link somewhere to Rahn saying that CR admitted to chasing her and tackling her? I'm pretty sure I remember him saying that she ran away and he chased her, but I was sure he (Rahn) just said he assumed he (CR) tackled her. It's really getting hard to keep facts straight in my mind, it's not that I don't believe it was said. TIA

CR chased down Mollie, tackled, and abducted her.

>>snip

Rivera said he approached and ran alongside or behind her. He said that Tibbetts grabbed her phone and told him to leave her alone, or she would call the police. Rivera said he chased down Tibbetts after she took off running, Rahn said.

What to know about the undocumented immigrant charged with killing Mollie Tibbetts

_________________

>>snip

"He told us he had seen Mollie in the past and on that particular day, July 18, 2018, he happened to see her, he was drawn to her, and as a result, kind of followed her around a little bit and ultimately confronted her," Rahn said. "And ended up tackling her and ultimately abducting her."

Mollie Tibbetts murder suspect 'was not who he said he was,' employer says

 

[TL4S]

I've read on WS that CR did not have an attorney present during his initial interview, where he eventually lead LE to her body. Is that correct?

Bear with me:

I'm starting to wonder if he did, in fact, kill her at a third location. If he admitted to chasing, tackling, and abducting her (even the affidavit included the words "put her in his trunk") prior to blocking his memories, and then he "came to" at the intersection before the cornfield pull-off, than that puts the murder somewhere in between. JMO - based on the assumption that the murder itself happened during the "blocked" "memories" phase of his story, which would be the very purpose for the story IMO.

And since it's been discussed here on WS that LE had a good idea of Mollie's timeline, and CR's story just confirmed it, then I go back to LE's POI map. IMO, the point at 430th and 200th might have been there for a reason.

On the reverse, if CR admitted anything to the murder itself taking place either before or after the "blocked" "memories" phase, than wouldn't some kind of recount be included on the Murder One affidavit? If he really did have some sort of episode before or after he killed her, I suppose he could have admitted to tackling, abducting, blocking memories, and dumping her, then lead LE to the body, but still not admit to the murder. But that seems strange. If he wasn't going to admit to the murder, than why admit to anything? Yet another reason I feel the murder took place during the "blocked" "memories."

This doesn't answer every question, like why the affidavit says "he noticed blood on the side of her head," or why only the 1900 block of 385th Ave. is listed on the affidavit, etc. And it doesn't necessarily make sense to me for him to take her at one location, kill her at another, then dump her at yet another, but then again, nothing about murdering a young woman out on a jog makes sense to me.

If he did murder her at 430th (especially if he also SA her there), that is only about 1.5 miles from his house, and in an area he might pass regularly. Maybe he was okay with that, but didn't want the body anywhere nearby, or along a route he would normally travel and be associated with? Random thoughts...

 

[MistyWaters]

There’s been quite a bit of prior discussion about the role the Fitbit might’ve played in establishing a timeline, plus speculation it may have established time of death.

So I’m just thinking, during her earlier regular run, the heart rate would be quite consistent. But then CR enters the picture and according to his own admissions, he gets mad and very upset. Mollie flees, he’s chasing her down, fast running and panic, fear and sheer terror would cause the heart rate to dramatically increase. Then she’s tackled and exactly what happens next we don’t know but I wonder if Fitbit evidence coincides with the entire timeline of CRs confession.

Prior to tracking down CR, LE wouldn’t have known the actual location Mollie was at or where the Fitbit was sourcing it’s data from, or even whether at some point it was just removed from her wrist. But if it was found with her body, all that could be huge evidence against CR.

 

[TL4S]

There’s been quite a bit of prior discussion about the role the Fitbit might’ve played in establishing a timeline, plus speculation it may have established time of death.

So I’m just thinking, during her earlier regular run, the heart rate would be quite consistent. But then CR enters the picture and according to his own admissions, he gets mad and very upset. Mollie flees, he’s chasing her down, fast running and panic, fear and sheer terror would cause the heart rate to dramatically increase. Then she’s tackled and exactly what happens next we don’t know but I wonder if Fitbit evidence coincides with the entire timeline of CRs confession.

Prior to tracking down CR, LE wouldn’t have known the actual location Mollie was at or where the Fitbit was sourcing it’s data from, or even whether at some point it was just removed from her wrist. But if it was found with her body, all that could be huge evidence against CR.

That's exactly what I think, too. You'd have Mollie's Fitbit and cell data to work off of, then cell and admission from CR to corroborate.

 

[Followfacts]

LE questioning CR without a lawyer? Why would that happen, was he not under arrest, or did arrest happen after questioning CR and he just voluntarily without a lawyer answered them. When was Miranda given, when LE was questioning him or before or during arrest? I’m just wondering why he right up front didn’t ask for lawyer before talking to LE about Tibbetts?
To share so much information with LE without a lawyer who surely would have told CR to shut his mouth, is difficult to imagine in today’s criminal justice reality of Not guilty pleas. It’s like the Tech effect on juries, every alleged criminal wants a Johnny Cochran defense.

 

[MistyWaters]

LE questioning CR without a lawyer? Why would that happen, was he not under arrest, or did arrest happen after questioning CR and he just voluntarily without a lawyer answered them. When was Miranda given, when LE was questioning him or before or during arrest? I’m just wondering why he right up front didn’t ask for lawyer before talking to LE about Tibbetts?

I think all we know is local, state and federal agencies were involved in the investigation however the actual sequence of events has not been disclosed.

“When Rivera was interviewed, Mortvedt said, he was cooperative and willing to speak with agents. Authorities used interpreters from another agency to speak with Rivera during the interview because he does not speak much English.“
Mollie Tibbetts suspect's past begins to emerge as scrutiny expands

 

[Charliegizmo49]

I've read on WS that CR did not have an attorney present during his initial interview, where he eventually lead LE to her body. Is that correct?

Bear with me:

I'm starting to wonder if he did, in fact, kill her at a third location. If he admitted to chasing, tackling, and abducting her (even the affidavit included the words "put her in his trunk") prior to blocking his memories, and then he "came to" at the intersection before the cornfield pull-off, than that puts the murder somewhere in between. JMO - based on the assumption that the murder itself happened during the "blocked" "memories" phase of his story, which would be the very purpose for the story IMO.

And since it's been discussed here on WS that LE had a good idea of Mollie's timeline, and CR's story just confirmed it, then I go back to LE's POI map. IMO, the point at 430th and 200th might have been there for a reason.

On the reverse, if CR admitted anything to the murder itself taking place either before or after the "blocked" "memories" phase, than wouldn't some kind of recount be included on the Murder One affidavit? If he really did have some sort of episode before or after he killed her, I suppose he could have admitted to tackling, abducting, blocking memories, and dumping her, then lead LE to the body, but still not admit to the murder. But that seems strange. If he wasn't going to admit to the murder, than why admit to anything? Yet another reason I feel the murder took place during the "blocked" "memories."

This doesn't answer every question, like why the affidavit says "he noticed blood on the side of her head," or why only the 1900 block of 385th Ave. is listed on the affidavit, etc. And it doesn't necessarily make sense to me for him to take her at one location, kill her at another, then dump her at yet another, but then again, nothing about murdering a young woman out on a jog makes sense to me.

If he did murder her at 430th (especially if he also SA her there), that is only about 1.5 miles from his house, and in an area he might pass regularly. Maybe he was okay with that, but didn't want the body anywhere nearby, or along a route he would normally travel and be associated with? Random thoughts...

This is a link for a somewhat similar yet different case. I’m certain LE BEGAN interview simply as questioning. When it turned into the interrogation and he was viewed as a suspect we don’t know. We are also not privy to who was present when, what was said or when an interpreter was brought in.


Confession in Murder Case Cannot Be Used As Evidence

To many unknowns to move forward.

 

[Followfacts]

I've read on WS that CR did not have an attorney present during his initial interview, where he eventually lead LE to her body. Is that correct?

Bear with me:

I'm starting to wonder if he did, in fact, kill her at a third location. If he admitted to chasing, tackling, and abducting her (even the affidavit included the words "put her in his trunk") prior to blocking his memories, and then he "came to" at the intersection before the cornfield pull-off, than that puts the murder somewhere in between. JMO - based on the assumption that the murder itself happened during the "blocked" "memories" phase of his story, which would be the very purpose for the story IMO.

And since it's been discussed here on WS that LE had a good idea of Mollie's timeline, and CR's story just confirmed it, then I go back to LE's POI map. IMO, the point at 430th and 200th might have been there for a reason.

On the reverse, if CR admitted anything to the murder itself taking place either before or after the "blocked" "memories" phase, than wouldn't some kind of recount be included on the Murder One affidavit? If he really did have some sort of episode before or after he killed her, I suppose he could have admitted to tackling, abducting, blocking memories, and dumping her, then lead LE to the body, but still not admit to the murder. But that seems strange. If he wasn't going to admit to the murder, than why admit to anything? Yet another reason I feel the murder took place during the "blocked" "memories."

This doesn't answer every question, like why the affidavit says "he noticed blood on the side of her head," or why only the 1900 block of 385th Ave. is listed on the affidavit, etc. And it doesn't necessarily make sense to me for him to take her at one location, kill her at another, then dump her at yet another, but then again, nothing about murdering a young woman out on a jog makes sense to me.

If he did murder her at 430th (especially if he also SA her there), that is only about 1.5 miles from his house, and in an area he might pass regularly. Maybe he was okay with that, but didn't want the body anywhere nearby, or along a route he would normally travel and be associated with? Random thoughts...

The blocked memories IMO when likely SA and murder occurred, the worst parts of the attack or for him the pleasurable parts are blocked out. He doesn’t include them in his story to LE because he blocked those memories because that’s what he does when he’s mad or upset. Whoa is me... There could be third location when he describes taking her out of trunk and dragging her by foot could be a different location than from putting her over his shoulder and carrying her in cornfield.

The defendant further described during the interview that he dragged Tibbetts on foot from his vehicle to a secluded location in a cornfield. Rivera described he put her over his shoulder and took her about 20 meters into the cornfield and he left her covered in some corn leaves and that he left her there, face up.

Could be two different locations both separate from initial abduction on 385th 1900 block.

 

[TL4S]

The blocked memories IMO when likely SA and murder occurred, the worst parts of the attack or for him the pleasurable parts are blocked out. He doesn’t include them in his story to LE because he blocked those memories because that’s what he does when he’s mad or upset. Whoa is me... There could be third location when he describes taking her out of trunk and dragging her by foot could be a different location than from putting her over his shoulder and carrying her in cornfield.

The defendant further described during the interview that he dragged Tibbetts on foot from his vehicle to a secluded location in a cornfield. Rivera described he put her over his shoulder and took her about 20 meters into the cornfield and he left her covered in some corn leaves and that he left her there, face up.

Could be two different locations both separate from initial abduction on 385th 1900 block.

Yes, but the location he dragged her by foot, and also the location he carried her over his shoulder, are both after his "blocked" "memories," so if he "blocked" the murder, it had to be before he drove into the cornfield pull-off. The dragging and carrying both occurred (according to his statement) once he was already in the cornfield pull-off.

 

[Alethea]

This doesn't answer every question, like why the affidavit says "he noticed blood on the side of her head," or why only the 1900 block of 385th Ave. is listed on the affidavit, etc.

Snipped by me, I was thinking about this. I think LE included the fact that he said "he noticed blood on the side of her head" to illustrate he knew she was seriously injured at that point, if not dead. This wasn't like, she tripped and scraped a knee and was fine. He admits he saw blood on the side of her head, likely signaling a serious injury.

If he knows, admits, and says he was aware of causing a serious injury (tackling her and slamming her head into the ground), then he may have killed her before the black out. If they can pinpoint her time and location of death (via the FitBit) to the northwest corner where he admits to attacking her, then his blackout doesn't matter. I think that may be a stretch if they said her COD was sharp force injuries and not blunt force trauma. The autopsy may show serious injury before death though, and the sharp force injuries may have been overkill.

Either way I think it helps them establish felony murder. He admits to assault and battery so severe she is bleeding from her head, and then she dies. That's felony murder. They would not even have to deal with his "black out" because he already intentionally and deliberately assaulted her which started the course of events resulting in her death.

JMO, just thinking outloud.

 

[TL4S]

Snipped by me, I was thinking about this. I think LE included the fact that he said "he noticed blood on the side of her head" to illustrate he knew she was seriously injured at that point, if not dead. This wasn't like, she tripped and scraped a knee and was fine. He admits he saw blood on the side of her head, likely signaling a serious injury.

If he knows, admits, and says he was aware of causing a serious injury (tackling her and slamming her head into the ground), then he may have killed her before the black out. If they can pinpoint her time and location of death (via the FitBit) to the northwest corner where he admits to attacking her, then his blackout doesn't matter. I think that may be a stretch if they said her COD was sharp force injuries and not blunt force trauma. The autopsy may show serious injury before death though, and the sharp force injuries may have been overkill.

Either way I think it helps them establish felony murder. He admits to assault and battery so severe she is bleeding from her head, and then she dies. That's felony murder. They would not even have to deal with his "black out" because he already intentionally and deliberately assaulted her which started the course of events resulting in her death.

JMO, just thinking outloud.

That does make sense. Anything they have that can be used despite his "blocked memories" story will only work against him. I had pictured that he inflicted the sharp force trauma injuries on 385th, in a rage. However, if he did throw her into his trunk, injured and bleeding from her head but alive, and took her elsewhere to kill her, wouldn't that also make the diminished capacity defense harder to prove? Could he really put her in his trunk, drive, take her out, kill her, put her back into his trunk, and drive some more all while in this emotional state of blocking memories? I'm probably overthinking the whole thing...

 

[Alethea]

That does make sense. Anything they have that can be used despite his "blocked memories" story will only work against him. I had pictured that he inflicted the sharp force trauma injuries on 385th, in a rage. However, if he did throw her into his trunk, injured and bleeding from her head but alive, and took her elsewhere to kill her, wouldn't that also make the diminished capacity defense harder to prove? Could he really put her in his trunk, drive, take her out, kill her, put her back into his trunk, and drive some more all while in this emotional state of blocking memories? I'm probably overthinking the whole thing...

I know I'm in the minority but I think the blackout defense is really weak. If he testifies in his own defense, prosecutors will ask him questions to trip him up and prove it's a lie. If he doesn't testify in his own defense, they will play his interview where he is not consistent about when he blacked out.

I don't believe he blacked out, I think he didn't want to tell LE what he did. It is very hard to keep up that kind of lie under questioning from professional prosecutors and LE agents. If you truly black out, you know nothing about the time. I'm sure LE asked him questions that disprove he blacked out. Where was her phone? "In her waistband pocket" Well how would you know that if you blacked out from 100 feet away? Etc etc. I don't want to do the defense's work for them but even for them, it walks an ethics line - if you don't believe he blacked out, do you prep him to testify that he blacked out? What if he tells you things that would objectively disprove his statements? You have a duty to represent your client to the best of your ability so you can't really IMO support him getting up there to testify and hang himself. It is a difficult situation.

 

[Hatfield]

JMO

I cant wait for the trial and I wont be surprised if he ends up plea dealing for a life sentence . I also am hoping there is a federal murder case of some kind to put death sentence on the table to force him to plea deal for a life sentence.

No matter what happens I dont think his words are going to matter. I think LE is going to have enough evidence like his DNA on her body to prove he murdered her. So no matter what he said about blocked memory I dont think it will even matter.

The defense will try to use whatever they can but I think prosecuters will gather enough physical evidence like DNA and evidence from the trunk of his car to prove he murdered her and get a successful conviction.

Thats my hope anyway. Bring on the trial.

Its probably going to be a long wait based on other cases taking up to a couple years or more before any trial starts.

 

[Followfacts]

Yes, but the location he dragged her by foot, and also the location he carried her over his shoulder, are both after his "blocked" "memories," so if he "blocked" the murder, it had to be before he drove into the cornfield pull-off. The dragging and carrying both occurred (according to his statement) once he was already in the cornfield pull-off.

Yes Right.. his story supports their timeline so he has episode block out at 385th 1900 block

“doesn't remember anything after that until he came to at an intersection. Rivera stated he then made a u-turn, drove back to an entrance to a field and then drove into a driveway to a cornfield.

He noticed there was an ear piece from headphones in his lap and that is how he realized he put her in the trunk. He went to get her out of the trunk and he noticed blood on the side of her head. The Defendant Rivera described the female's clothing, that she was wearing including an ear phone or head phone set.

The defendant further described during the interview that he dragged Tibbetts on foot from his vehicle to a secluded location in a cornfield. Rivera described he put her over his shoulder and took her about 20 meters into the cornfield and he left her covered in some corn leaves and that he left her there, face up.”

 

[TL4S]

I know I'm in the minority but I think the blackout defense is really weak. If he testifies in his own defense, prosecutors will ask him questions to trip him up and prove it's a lie. If he doesn't testify in his own defense, they will play his interview where he is not consistent about when he blacked out.

I don't believe he blacked out, I think he didn't want to tell LE what he did. It is very hard to keep up that kind of lie under questioning from professional prosecutors and LE agents. If you truly black out, you know nothing about the time. I'm sure LE asked him questions that disprove he blacked out. Where was her phone? "In her waistband pocket" Well how would you know that if you blacked out from 100 feet away? Etc etc. I don't want to do the defense's work for them but even for them, it walks an ethics line - if you don't believe he blacked out, do you prep him to testify that he blacked out? What if he tells you things that would objectively disprove his statements? You have a duty to represent your client to the best of your ability so you can't really IMO support him getting up there to testify and hang himself. It is a difficult situation.

Agreed. I wouldn't want that job, and I can't imagine him taking the stand. Honestly, the way the affidavit is written, CR already hangs himself by stating she threatened to call police, ran away, then he got angry and "blocked" his " memories." Next, when he was near the cornfield, the earbud reminded him that he'd put her in the trunk (which if he'd started blocking at the tackle, the trunk part shouldn't be in his memory). I'm just assuming it was the format of the affidavit, though, instead of it being the sequential order of the interview, but I don't know much about these things.

 

[Alethea]

Thinking again... I think we all have been assuming or thinking that we are going to find out there was a sexual assault. What if there wasn't? What if it was sexually motivated but he did fly into a rage and just killed her instead. Then his "black out" would have been pulling out his knife and stabbing her repeatedly. How long could that have been? 2 minutes? A 30 second blackout?

Why didn't he "come to" out of his rage blackout when he stopped stabbing her. When he saw her lifeless body on the road? While he was picking her up and putting her in the car? While he was calmly driving down the road? Seems like this black out is really precise and not related to the times when your heart rate would actually spike out of anger and rage and calm down after the incident is over. If I were going to make up a black out defense I think I would time it to encompass physical reaction times.

(All JMO, it's a slow Saturday morning at the Alethea home)