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

[MistyWaters]

Let's just hope all other people who think about it like I do are also excused from jury duty for one reason or another. My fear isn't that he'll be convicted of first degree murder if he didn't plan it ahead of time, it's that he'll be found not guilty because there isn't proof that he did. I'm just hoping they have all of their bases covered without any backup choices for the jury (felony murder is also 1st degree, but doesn't have to be premeditated - or even intentional.) MOO

Aletha explained it better than I can, but I’ll give it a try.

Premeditation does not have to involve planning in advance, but it does require planning to kill. In a multiple stabbing scenario, the first injury is unlikely to cause immediate death even if it is proven fatal. Probably not the second either. Because the perp does not stop stabbing the victim and continues to do so multiple times, the obvious reason is intentionally planning to kill. Planning to kill proves premeditation.

The sentence for a conviction of felony murder in Iowa is also life imprisonment. During the course of a sexual assault or abduction, the victim is killed. In that scenario, death might occur if the victim was hit or choked to prevent her from fighting back. But I can’t imagine why a perp would inflict multiple stab wounds in order to sexually assault or abduct a victim, without intending that to cause her death. Intending to cause death, planning to cause death - premeditation.

That’s how I perceive it and maybe that only makes sense to me.

 

[Confusion]

Aletha explained it better than I can, but I’ll give it a try.

Premeditation does not have to involve planning in advance, but it does require planning to kill. In a multiple stabbing scenario, the first injury is unlikely to cause immediate death even if it is proven fatal. Probably not the second either. Because the perp does not stop stabbing the victim and continues to do so multiple times, the obvious reason is intentionally planning to kill. Planning to kill proves premeditation.

The sentence for a conviction of felony murder in Iowa is also life imprisonment. During the course of a sexual assault or abduction, the victim is killed. In that scenario, death might occur if the victim was hit or choked to prevent her from fighting back. But I can’t imagine why a perp would inflict multiple stab wounds in order to sexually assault or abduct a victim, without intending that to cause her death. Intending to cause death, planning to cause death - premeditation.

That’s how I perceive it and maybe that only makes sense to me.

As I said, to me premeditation means that you planned to kill ahead of time. If a person is so enraged that they just keep stabbing repeatedly, that doesn't mean it was pre-planned in my mind (and by what I was taught.) I never said anything about his intentions, I don't think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that he intentionally killed her. The premeditation is the part that I see as a possible problem. In order to be charged with 2nd degree murder, it has to be intentional so that fact doesn't really prove premeditation. I just think it would be better if they would include a charge of felony murder in case someone on the jury doesn't agree that it was premeditated. That way, it could still be considered 1st degree as long as they can prove that she died because of an attempted (or completed) abduction and/or sexual attack. Both are felonies, I believe, so it wouldn't matter if he originally planned to kill her or decided to on the spur of the moment, it would still be 1st degree murder. MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

As I said, to me premeditation means that you planned to kill ahead of time. If a person is so enraged that they just keep stabbing repeatedly, that doesn't mean it was pre-planned in my mind (and by what I was taught.) I never said anything about his intentions, I don't think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that he intentionally killed her. The premeditation is the part that I see as a possible problem. In order to be charged with 2nd degree murder, it has to be intentional so that fact doesn't really prove premeditation. I just think it would be better if they would include a charge of felony murder in case someone on the jury doesn't agree that it was premeditated. That way, it could still be considered 1st degree as long as they can prove that she died because of an attempted (or completed) abduction and/or sexual attack. Both are felonies, I believe, so it wouldn't matter if he originally planned to kill her or decided to on the spur of the moment, it would still be 1st degree murder. MOO

Prior to jury deliberation, I believe in Iowa the Judge has the option to include lesser charges if appropriate, when giving the jury instructions.

Another thing about Jury deliberation, in most trials the Judge is very thorough in explaining definitions of the law to the jury, and what constitutes the various degrees. Sometimes juror members are even provided with a worksheet to help them work through what they believe the evidence proved, then what appropriate charge that points toward. So I’d be hopeful the jurors would all be clear on the particular definitions. Whether or not they believe the evidence they’ve been presented by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt is where the dilemma can arise.

 

[katydid23]

I hate to say it, but I'm one of those people who would be harder to convince; luckily, I'm always excused from jury duty because of my health. Since she is an attorney, I'm assuming that Alethea knows what she's talking about. My problem comes because of how premeditation was explained to me many years ago.

For example: A man and a woman are arguing in the kitchen and one of them gets so mad he/she picks up an knife and stabs the other one several times; that would be considered 2nd degree murder because the person meant to commit murder, but didn't plan on it ahead of time. Compare that to a man and woman are arguing in the living room and one gets so mad he/she goes into the kitchen, grabs a knife, returns to the living room and stabs the other one (any number of times); that would be considered to be premeditated because the person planned to commit murder by going to get the weapon and returning to commit the act.

Because that definition is ingrained in my mind, I'd need to see some evidence that murder was his goal before he actually did it. It may not make sense to most people, but it's why I think they should consider other/lessor charges too, such as felony murder because he killed her while/after he abducted her and/or while committing/attempting a sexual assault, or second degree murder if they believe he may have just murdered her out of fear or anger with no intentions of abducting her. Whatever he's charged with and convicted of, I hope he spends all, or at least most, of the rest of his life locked up. MOO

I totally hear what you are saying. But I think the difference here, and it is a big difference, is that the victim in this case was not his wife, in the kitchen with him---it was a stranger that he kidnapped.

I think the premeditation begins when he chases her and throws her in his car, against her will. he may not have decided upon murder at that time, but there was malice and intent to do harm. And so when the weapon is pulled out, it is greatly elevated. JMO

 

[Alethea]

And I think we all have to keep in mind that the prosector's entire case and presentation of the evidence will be to convince jurors that each element of the crime charged has been committed. They do not just throw up all of the evidence and ask jurors to make complicated legal distinctions. The prosecutor will outline each element and (try to) show how the evidence supports that the element was met. Jury instructions can be very detailed.

At the end of discovery, the prosecutor will decide finally what the final charges will be and what lesser included charges should be included. What is charged on day 1 is not necessarily what goes to trial.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Hi All,
IIRC CR was reported to have lived with a "cousin" in Blairstown, IA before moving to the Brooklyn area. That is just a short drive (approx. 49 miles) to Waterloo, IA.

 

[Confusion]

I totally hear what you are saying. But I think the difference here, and it is a big difference, is that the victim in this case was not his wife, in the kitchen with him---it was a stranger that he kidnapped.

I think the premeditation begins when he chases her and throws her in his car, against her will. he may not have decided upon murder at that time, but there was malice and intent to do harm. And so when the weapon is pulled out, it is greatly elevated. JMO

At that point, he was committing a felony (by attempting to abduct her) so it would be considered felony murder (1st degree) if he killed her after abducting her, or even trying to. If he had actually run by her just to talk and got upset and attacked her (as he said), it would be considered 2nd degree because it wasn't premeditated and wasn't done while he was committing a felony. I don't see any way that manslaughter or accidental death would even be considered by the defense. I guess my biggest question is why they chose premeditation as their justification for 1st degree rather than felony murder if they only want to charge him with one. MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

At that point, he was committing a felony (by attempting to abduct her) so it would be considered felony murder (1st degree) if he killed her after abducting her, or even trying to. If he had actually run by her just to talk and got upset and attacked her (as he said), it would be considered 2nd degree because it wasn't premeditated and wasn't done while he was committing a felony. I don't see any way that manslaughter or accidental death would even be considered by the defense. I guess my biggest question is why they chose premeditation as their justification for 1st degree rather than felony murder if they only want to charge him with one. MOO

Premeditated homicide is the highest murder charge. Even though the sentence is the same for felony murder, felony murder is a lesser charge. Then follows 2nd degree. As Althea mentioned, just because CR was not charged with the full range of possible murder charges doesn’t mean he couldn’t be convicted of a lesser charge.

CR admitted to putting Mollie in the trunk of his vehicle but we don’t know the sequence of events. For example we don’t know if he caused her death prior or after that. If he put her dead body in the trunk in order to cover up his crime, that’s not kidnapping. We also don’t know if sexual assault occurred while she was still alive and I think that would be very difficult to prove. JMO its far easier to prove premeditated first degree murder through his actions, also considering the cause of death.

Is anyone able to explain what this means?
BBM
A forcible felony is defined as any felonious assault, murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, arson in the first degree or burglary in the first degree. However, the Iowa Supreme Court has concluded that if an act causing willful injury as a forcible felony is the same act that causes the victim’s death, that act cannot serve as the predicate felony for felony murder purposes.

Murder/Homicide in Iowa - GRL Law Firm

 

[Confusion]

A forcible felony is defined as any felonious assault, murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, arson in the first degree or burglary in the first degree. However, the Iowa Supreme Court has concluded that if an act causing willful injury as a forcible felony is the same act that causes the victim’s death, that act cannot serve as the predicate felony for felony murder purposes.

I'm just guessing, but it sounds to me like a felonious assault or arson (if it's known that someone will be trapped in the fire) that results in death can't be used to convict of felony murder. There are probably other forcible felonies that can result in death too, but those are the two that came to mind for me. MOO

 

[Alethea]

Premeditated homicide is the highest murder charge. Even though the sentence is the same for felony murder, felony murder is a lesser charge. Then follows 2nd degree. As Althea mentioned, just because CR was not charged with the full range of possible murder charges doesn’t mean he couldn’t be convicted of a lesser charge.

CR admitted to putting Mollie in the trunk of his vehicle but we don’t know the sequence of events. For example we don’t know if he caused her death prior or after that. If he put her dead body in the trunk in order to cover up his crime, that’s not kidnapping. We also don’t know if sexual assault occurred while she was still alive and I think that would be very difficult to prove. JMO its far easier to prove premeditated first degree murder through his actions, also considering the cause of death.

Is anyone able to explain what this means?
BBM
A forcible felony is defined as any felonious assault, murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, arson in the first degree or burglary in the first degree. However, the Iowa Supreme Court has concluded that if an act causing willful injury as a forcible felony is the same act that causes the victim’s death, that act cannot serve as the predicate felony for felony murder purposes.

Murder/Homicide in Iowa - GRL Law Firm

Felony murder is historically supposed to cover when someone dies during a violent act where the reasonable person could assume that lives were at risk. It was to cover the gap and discourage violent crimes short of murder where there's a high and predictable risk of someone dying. So like @Confusion said, if someone set a house on fire and someone was home and they die, that's a completely predictable consequence of arson so the person who committed the arson "should" be responsible for the death even if the arsonist did not openly intend to kill anyone.

All of criminal (and tort) law is about the balancing of burdens and inferences. When you are committing a violent crime, the state is saying you no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt and instead you are taking on an unreasonable risk where you are responsible for the consequences that follow. In terms of preventing crime, the state wants to discourage unreasonably dangerous activity and make it crystal clear to would-be criminals that if someone dies during the course of a violent felony, they will be responsible for the death as murder. This may make the new criminal think twice before going on the armed robbery or setting the house on fire. At least theoretically.

I think the Ohio explanation is stating that there has to be a defined and prosecutable felony prior to or during the death for an incident to be considered felony murder. So if Person A shoots Person B, the assault and battery of person B (fear of harm and harm to body) is not a predicate felony that would make Person A's murder of Person B via a gunshot felony murder. It would just be first or second degree murder.

The state is saying they do not want prosecutors to try to use felony murder charges where traditional murder is more appropriate. The entire act of Person A shooting Person B was the homicide. There's no predicate (earlier) felony.

If, by contrast, Person A is robbing a bank and Person B is accidentally shot during the robbery, Person A does not get to argue that the shooting was accidental and should be considered manslaughter. In this case Person A could be charged with felony murder because the death occurred during the commission of the predicate felony (armed robbery).

 

[Alethea]

In Mollie's case I do think they could consider a kidnapping or SA a predicate felony and charge felony murder if she died during the commission of that crime. However, as of today, it looks like they are going to attempt to bring it as a traditional murder where the goal was the death of the decedent.

As long as there is physical evidence, I don't think it will actually be as hard as everyone thinks to prove 1st degree murder. There are not many innocent explanations for chasing down a stranger on the street and placing her in your car trunk. Prosecutors don't need to explain why he did it. Or the why can be he is a sick evil man like the hundreds or thousands of other predators who have attacked and killed women for some twisted sexual power fantasy.

Him driving around the neighborhood prowling may be able to establish premeditation. What was the purpose if not finding a vulnerable woman to hunt and kill? There are many precedent cases that are very similar.

 

[MistyWaters]

Felony murder is historically supposed to cover when someone dies during a violent act where the reasonable person could assume that lives were at risk. It was to cover the gap and discourage violent crimes short of murder where there's a high and predictable risk of someone dying. So like @Confusion said, if someone set a house on fire and someone was home and they die, that's a completely predictable consequence of arson so the person who committed the arson "should" be responsible for the death even if the arsonist did not openly intend to kill anyone.

All of criminal (and tort) law is about the balancing of burdens and inferences. When you are committing a violent crime, the state is saying you no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt and instead you are taking on an unreasonable risk where you are responsible for the consequences that follow. In terms of preventing crime, the state wants to discourage unreasonably dangerous activity and make it crystal clear to would-be criminals that if someone dies during the course of a violent felony, they will be responsible for the death as murder. This may make the new criminal think twice before going on the armed robbery or setting the house on fire. At least theoretically.

I think the Ohio explanation is stating that there has to be a defined and prosecutable felony prior to or during the death for an incident to be considered felony murder. So if Person A shoots Person B, the assault and battery of person B (fear of harm and harm to body) is not a predicate felony that would make Person A's murder of Person B via a gunshot felony murder. It would just be first or second degree murder.

The state is saying they do not want prosecutors to try to use felony murder charges where traditional murder is more appropriate. The entire act of Person A shooting Person B was the homicide. There's no predicate (earlier) felony.

If, by contrast, Person A is robbing a bank and Person B is accidentally shot during the robbery, Person A does not get to argue that the shooting was accidental and should be considered manslaughter. In this case Person A could be charged with felony murder because the death occurred during the commission of the predicate felony (armed robbery).

Thank you, your explanations are always very helpful and enlightening.

So my thought is the prosecution would have difficulty proving sharp force injuries were a direct result of a felony. Death was caused by a separate act involving the alleged perp holding the weapon in his hand and then using it, multiple times.

 

[PommyMommy]

Lawyers for man accused of killing Mollie Tibbetts say prosecution lacks evidence
Attorneys for suspect Cristhian Rivera say prosecutors do not have enough evidence to prove premeditated murder.

They say court documents don't have enough details to support a first-degree murder charge.

Prosecutors say Tibbetts died of multiple stabbings, and that typically means it was not an accident.

Rivera's lawyers should receive a report from the Iowa DCI later today.

 

[katydid23]

Defense Attorneys ALWAYS say that the prosecutors do not have enough evidence, blah blah blah...

 

[PommyMommy]

Mollie Tibbetts: Prosecutors provide key detail that led to suspected killer’s arrest
24-year-old Cristhian Rivera, accused of killing 20-year-old Mollie in July, reportedly told prosecutors in August that it was his car they were viewing on surveillance footage provided by a Brooklyn, Iowa resident, showing a black Chevrolet Malibu circling around the area Mollie jogged at when she vanished.

“Yes, that’s my car,” Rivera said, according to a court filing made on Wednesday morning.

 

[Mica]

Lawyers for man accused of killing Mollie Tibbetts say prosecution lacks evidence
Attorneys for suspect Cristhian Rivera say prosecutors do not have enough evidence to prove premeditated murder.

They say court documents don't have enough details to support a first-degree murder charge.

Prosecutors say Tibbetts died of multiple stabbings, and that typically means it was not an accident.

Rivera's lawyers should receive a report from the Iowa DCI later today.

Didn’t the defense just file a motion claiming they haven’t received discovery from the prosecution. The prosecution said they are within the timeframe for handing over evidence and the motion is moot. I’m paraphrasing.


Edited to add info and source to support my comment.

Snip

Bahena Rivera's defense team in September filed a motionarguing prosecutors must tell them what specific actions he was accused of taking to kill the 20-year-old University of Iowa student. His lawyers said details included in documents charging him with first-degree murder do not offer enough information for them to mount a defense in the case. (Those documents are not public.)

In response, prosecutors said in a public filing that the motion for a bill of particulars cannot be used to obtain the state's evidence. Bahena Rivera's attorneys filed the motion before receiving any discovery, which prosecutors said will further support the charge.

"The filing of this motion is premature," Scott Brown and Laura Roan, the Iowa assistant attorneys general prosecuting the case, said in court records.

A report from the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation will be finalized and delivered to Bahena Rivera's attorneys Friday. Further forensic testing was expected to be done in November, prosecutors said.

'That's my car': Prosecutors reveal new detail of suspect's murder charge in Mollie Tibbetts killing

 

[RavenDoc]

In the interest of posting to bump Mollie's thread back to the first page, doing some research on where CR comes from (Guayabillo Mexico, in the state of Guerrero (which means 'warrior' in Hispanic lexicon ))...
The crime rate in Guerrero is one of the highest of all the states in Mexico (link below to article):
18 criminal gangs are fighting for control of territory in Guerrero

Though this article/blog on MSM has some political opinions in it, there are some issues raised regarding Mexican male mentality and aggressiveness towards females that are IMO worthy of consideration as relates to what CR did to Mollie. I'll delete this link if the political aspects are not in keeping with WS TOS, apologies in advance if so!
https://www.americanthinker.com/art..._tibbetts_the_victim_of_mexican_machismo.html

I would hope that this is viewed as a good way of trying to gauge socio environmental factors surrounding what he may have seen or been exposed to in his actual town/city as it pertains to how it can influence his actions in this case. Thanks for this!

 

[Confusion]

They say court documents don't have enough details to support a first-degree murder charge.
Prosecutors say Tibbetts died of multiple stabbings, and that typically means it was not an accident.

I think what they're saying is that it wasn't necessarily premeditated even though it wasn't an accident. If he had originally planned to just harass her a bit (not saying that I think that's the case) and chose to murder her after she put up a fight, it wouldn't be an accident or premeditated unless he didn't already have the weapon on him, took her somewhere else to be murdered or something else happened that showed that he decided ahead of time that he was going to kill her. Second degree murder is also intentional, but is usually more of a spur of the moment decision. If the jury is given the choice between 1st degree (premeditated), 1st degree (felony murder) and 2nd degree murder, I would say that CR will get (at least most of) what he deserves. My uneducated but not so humble opinion.

 

[PommyMommy]

Didn’t the defense just file a motion claiming they haven’t received discovery from the prosecution. The prosecution said they are within the timeframe for handing over evidence and the motion is moot. I’m paraphrasing.


Edited to add info and source to support my comment.

Snip

Bahena Rivera's defense team in September filed a motionarguing prosecutors must tell them what specific actions he was accused of taking to kill the 20-year-old University of Iowa student. His lawyers said details included in documents charging him with first-degree murder do not offer enough information for them to mount a defense in the case. (Those documents are not public.)

In response, prosecutors said in a public filing that the motion for a bill of particulars cannot be used to obtain the state's evidence. Bahena Rivera's attorneys filed the motion before receiving any discovery, which prosecutors said will further support the charge.

"The filing of this motion is premature," Scott Brown and Laura Roan, the Iowa assistant attorneys general prosecuting the case, said in court records.

A report from the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation will be finalized and delivered to Bahena Rivera's attorneys Friday. Further forensic testing was expected to be done in November, prosecutors said.

'That's my car': Prosecutors reveal new detail of suspect's murder charge in Mollie Tibbetts killing

Yes. This article was published today, however. Not sure why, lol.
MOO

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I would hope that this is viewed as a good way of trying to gauge socio environmental factors surrounding what he may have seen or been exposed to in his actual town/city as it pertains to how it can influence his actions in this case. Thanks for this!

You’re welcome, that’s what I hoped it would be taken as... your eloquent recap is on point with the purpose of my post! I was worried some of the opinions in the blog would ruffle some feathers, but there are some salient things to consider for Mollie and how the seemingly ‘random encounter’ with CR went so horribly wrong.

About a week after CR was arrested, someone who was a regular poster on Mollie’s thread posted that (paraphrasing here) CR looked a lot like (in appearance) a tribe or group of indigenous people in Guayabillo who had been pretty much violently eradicated in recent history by another group, but when I searched the threads long and hard several times a week or so later, I couldn’t find the post. I thought perhaps the topic of CR’s background in his homeland community was maybe off-topic at the time, so the post was removed.

That’s why I’ve been searching the internet for literally weeks whenever I have a chance, to see if I could find out more about the situation there that CR grew up with and then left to come to the US.

What I posted was IMO just scratching at the surface. I’m confident the DA will bring up at trial whatever is germane on CR’s past that could figure into the incredibly horrific crime he committed against an innocent young woman who was going for her regular run one summer’s eve, and he took her life