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

[Twistinginthewind]

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.

That’s right, even if the conviction of Murder One (premeditated, which is what is in the arrest affidavit) can’t be proven, Murder One (felony) is a sure thing because they have evidence (he said) that he stalked, kidnapped & assaulted Mollie, and drug her body to the cornfield, and was very able to then led LE to her body - those are felonies, regardless of CR’s claims of blocked memory “in the interim” of what actually caused her death.

There will be justice for Mollie and her loved ones! I didn’t know her, but each time I go to this thread and have to see the title of the thread as “found deceased”, my heart is pained. I can’t accept her being gone & can’t imagine what her loved ones are going through.

 

[SharonNeedles]

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.

I for one am not at all convinced that this is First Degree.

 

[PommyMommy]

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.

Welllllllll, of course they're going to say that. If they're doing their job correctly, they're going to work every angle known to man. IANAL, but from what I recall (haven't been keeping up as well as most of you here) it seems premeditated to me. He didn't just stab her once. MOO

 

[Twistinginthewind]

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.

Makes sense to me too. In the last few weeks or so, someone (I think it was Ocean Blue Eyes) posted on Mollie’s thread that on other cases, inflicting multiple stab wounds that were intended to kill was the equivalent of premeditation just through the sheer force of intention to silence (kill) the victim of the assault.

So, just saying LE & the DA have multiple plans of attack to prove Murder in the First Degree of Mollie by CR - premeditated and/or felonious!

 

[Twistinginthewind]

His attorneys also argued prosecutors have not provided information about how they intend to show the killing was premeditated. A crime scene report and two lab reports have not been provided to them, they said in the motion.

But in their resistance, prosecutors said an autopsy found Tibbetts died of multiple sharp force injuries, a cause of death that established a premeditated and deliberate killing.

I’m not comfortable with the source, Des Moines Register is Iowa’s version of the National Enquirer, but if this is accurate and that’s how the prosecution intends to convince twelve jurors that the act was premeditated I’m worried.

Skepticism is based on something... what is your basis for concern, if you feel the charges are not going to hold up?

 

[MistyWaters]

Makes sense to me too. In the last few weeks or so, someone (I think it was Ocean Blue Eyes) posted on Mollie’s thread that on other cases, inflicting multiple stab wounds that were intended to kill was the equivalent of premeditation just through the sheer force of intention to silence (kill) the victim of the assault.

So, just saying LE & the DA have multiple plans of attack to prove Murder in the First Degree of Mollie by CR - premeditated and/or felonious!

When the actual weapon, number and precise location on the body the sharp force wounds were inflicted becomes known, I think the strength of evidence will also become much clearer. For example, death caused by multiple sharp force injuries could result from blood loss due to a victim being stabbed with a sharp end of some kind of mechanical tool 3 times, or it could directly result due to stabbings by a 12” knife 15 times primarily to neck and chest area.

 

[Confusion]

When the actual weapon, number and precise location on the body the sharp force wounds were inflicted becomes known, I think the strength of evidence will also become much clearer. For example, death caused by multiple sharp force injuries could result from blood loss due to a victim being stabbed with a sharp end of some kind of mechanical tool 3 times, or it could directly result due to stabbings by a 12” knife 15 times primarily to neck and chest area.

I'm not suggesting this is what happened, and I'm not trying to make excuses for him, but there are probably a few other ways that a person could cause multiple sharp force injuries to another without premeditating a murder. One example I can think of: MT threatens to call 911, and he panics like he said. He pulls out a weapon and tells her to give him her phone; she refuses and he grabs for it. She tries to stop him and gets a cut on her hand/arm. He gets more upset and pushes her to the ground (possibly causing the blood on the side of her head), and she starts kicking at him. As she's kicking, he's trying to get hold of her and her phone and she ends up with cuts on her legs. He finally gets past her legs and grabs her, and purposely cuts her (somewhere that is fatal either immediately or a short time later) because she's still fighting, and throws her in the trunk or he throws her in the trunk and she's still fighting while he's trying to close it so he stabs her then.

In this case, he didn't plan to kill her when he pulled out the weapon, he wasn't trying to kill her with most of the injuries, but she would receive multiple sharp force injuries. In this case, he could be charged with 2nd degree murder because it wasn't premeditated but was intentional, or he could be charged with 1st degree - felony murder - because she was murdered while he was in the process of committing a felony. I don't believe he could be charged with premeditated murder in spite of the multiple injuries, even though her death was intentional. I really doubt that this is exactly what happened, but it is one way it could have. (All that after talking about how I don't like discussing or reading about how the attack may have happened - I guess I can be a bit of a hypocrite at times.) MOO

 

[SharonNeedles]

Skepticism is based on something... what is your basis for concern, if you feel the charges are not going to hold up?

I’ve seen nothing that convinces me this is First Degree. Granted, the state might have a hole card that’s a game changer in that regard, but until and unless that comes out I just don’t see any indication of premeditation at all.

If the argument is truly that it’s premeditated based solely on the cause of death... I just don’t think that dog will hunt.

 

[SharonNeedles]

I'm not suggesting this is what happened, and I'm not trying to make excuses for him, but there are probably a few other ways that a person could cause multiple sharp force injuries to another without premeditating a murder. One example I can think of: MT threatens to call 911, and he panics like he said. He pulls out a weapon and tells her to give him her phone; she refuses and he grabs for it. She tries to stop him and gets a cut on her hand/arm. He gets more upset and pushes her to the ground (possibly causing the blood on the side of her head), and she starts kicking at him. As she's kicking, he's trying to get hold of her and her phone and she ends up with cuts on her legs. He finally gets past her legs and grabs her, and purposely cuts her (somewhere that is fatal either immediately or a short time later) because she's still fighting, and throws her in the trunk or he throws her in the trunk and she's still fighting while he's trying to close it so he stabs her then.

In this case, he didn't plan to kill her when he pulled out the weapon, he wasn't trying to kill her with most of the injuries, but she would receive multiple sharp force injuries. In this case, he could be charged with 2nd degree murder because it wasn't premeditated but was intentional, or he could be charged with 1st degree - felony murder - because she was murdered while he was in the process of committing a felony. I don't believe he could be charged with premeditated murder in spite of the multiple injuries, even though her death was intentional. I really doubt that this is exactly what happened, but it is one way it could have. (All that after talking about how I don't like discussing or reading about how the attack may have happened - I guess I can be a bit of a hypocrite at times.) MOO

And that’s exactly why the prosecution, by design, is always at a disadvantage. The defense does not need to prove that it wasn’t premeditated, the prosecution needs to prove that it was. And they need present it clearly enough that twelve jurors fully understand it and agree beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[katydid23]

I'm not suggesting this is what happened, and I'm not trying to make excuses for him, but there are probably a few other ways that a person could cause multiple sharp force injuries to another without premeditating a murder. One example I can think of: MT threatens to call 911, and he panics like he said. He pulls out a weapon and tells her to give him her phone; she refuses and he grabs for it. She tries to stop him and gets a cut on her hand/arm. He gets more upset and pushes her to the ground (possibly causing the blood on the side of her head), and she starts kicking at him. As she's kicking, he's trying to get hold of her and her phone and she ends up with cuts on her legs. He finally gets past her legs and grabs her, and purposely cuts her (somewhere that is fatal either immediately or a short time later) because she's still fighting, and throws her in the trunk or he throws her in the trunk and she's still fighting while he's trying to close it so he stabs her then.

In this case, he didn't plan to kill her when he pulled out the weapon, he wasn't trying to kill her with most of the injuries, but she would receive multiple sharp force injuries. In this case, he could be charged with 2nd degree murder because it wasn't premeditated but was intentional, or he could be charged with 1st degree - felony murder - because she was murdered while he was in the process of committing a felony. I don't believe he could be charged with premeditated murder in spite of the multiple injuries, even though her death was intentional. I really doubt that this is exactly what happened, but it is one way it could have. (All that after talking about how I don't like discussing or reading about how the attack may have happened - I guess I can be a bit of a hypocrite at times.) MOO

I think a lot of jurors are going to think that if someone grabs a random girl off the street, throws her in their trunk, at knife point, that right there is very very close to premeditated murder. How many predators who do that, plan to set that girl free and unharmed?

 

[Seattle1]

And that’s exactly why the prosecution, by design, is always at a disadvantage. The defense does not need to prove that it wasn’t premeditated, the prosecution needs to prove that it was. And they need present it clearly enough that twelve jurors fully understand it and agree beyond reasonable doubt.

Exactly! It's worrisome when there's an idea and/or air that a dozen guilty but unrelated issues to the physical abduction and murder will convict CBR of 1st degree murder. MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm not suggesting this is what happened, and I'm not trying to make excuses for him, but there are probably a few other ways that a person could cause multiple sharp force injuries to another without premeditating a murder. One example I can think of: MT threatens to call 911, and he panics like he said. He pulls out a weapon and tells her to give him her phone; she refuses and he grabs for it. She tries to stop him and gets a cut on her hand/arm. He gets more upset and pushes her to the ground (possibly causing the blood on the side of her head), and she starts kicking at him. As she's kicking, he's trying to get hold of her and her phone and she ends up with cuts on her legs. He finally gets past her legs and grabs her, and purposely cuts her (somewhere that is fatal either immediately or a short time later) because she's still fighting, and throws her in the trunk or he throws her in the trunk and she's still fighting while he's trying to close it so he stabs her then.

In this case, he didn't plan to kill her when he pulled out the weapon, he wasn't trying to kill her with most of the injuries, but she would receive multiple sharp force injuries. In this case, he could be charged with 2nd degree murder because it wasn't premeditated but was intentional, or he could be charged with 1st degree - felony murder - because she was murdered while he was in the process of committing a felony. I don't believe he could be charged with premeditated murder in spite of the multiple injuries, even though her death was intentional. I really doubt that this is exactly what happened, but it is one way it could have. (All that after talking about how I don't like discussing or reading about how the attack may have happened - I guess I can be a bit of a hypocrite at times.) MOO

If it’s true, according to the comments of Rahn, after Mollie threatened to call police, she ran away and CR admitted to chasing her, then tackling her. This was not just a confrontation, he pursued her therefore the prosecution has opportunity to prove he deliberately planned to murder her to prevent her from reporting him. Why else would he chase her after she demanded that he leave her alone? Alternately, if he originally intended to kidnap and sexually assault her, it’s impossible he planned to allow her to walk away after, given he admitted to getting upset at the possibility she would call police over him harassing her. Again that leads to premeditated murder.

However we lack many facts and don’t know what evidence LE has gathered. Hopefully it’s a lot more than we might think.

 

[katydid23]

If it’s true, according to the comments of Rahn, after Mollie threatened to call police, she ran away and CR admitted to chasing her, then tackling her. This was not just a confrontation, he pursued her therefore the prosecution has opportunity to prove he deliberately planned to murder her to prevent her from reporting him. Why else would he chase her after she demanded that he leave her alone? Alternately, if he originally intended to kidnap and sexually assault her, it’s impossible he planned to allow her to walk away after, given he admitted to getting upset at the possibility she would call police over him harassing her. Again that leads to premeditated murder.

However we lack many facts and don’t know what evidence LE has gathered. Hopefully it’s a lot more than we might think.

Thank You. You explained it more clearly than I did. If a predator grabs a girl off the street, and lets her see his face and his vehicle, he is not going to release her unharmed at the end of his 'fun time.' He knew right then she was going to have to die.

 

[Confusion]

Thank You. You explained it more clearly than I did. If a predator grabs a girl off the street, and lets her see his face and his vehicle, he is not going to release her unharmed at the end of his 'fun time.' He knew right then she was going to have to die.

In most cases, that's true. I've known females who were abducted and assaulted but still survived. Of course, it wasn't for lack of trying that 2 of them weren't murdered. I don't doubt that he had planned to kill her, what I do question is whether or not it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People can't be convicted because common sense says they're guilty, and we have no idea what kind of hard evidence they have.

I've had guys circle the block a few times, make lewd comments and "invitations", and eventually drive away, so the fact that he drove past her several times doesn't automatically mean that he planned to kill her. A friend and I were walking down a gravel road one day (long story, don't ask!), and 2 guys came driving up behind us. They stopped and asked where we were going and why we were out there, and we just told them we were going into town. They tried to convince us that it would be smarter to let them give us a ride. We refused and they drove along side of us for about 10-15 minutes before finally giving up and leaving; having a strange guy stop and talk to a young girl, and even follow her for a while, doesn't prove that he planned to kill her.

Looking at the string of events that led to her death definitely makes it appear that he planned to murder her all along, but they still have to prove it. As I've said, I believe he knew what he was going to do, but I'm just hoping they have the evidence to prove it or have an alternative plan in case they don't. A case like this may seem like it'll be so easy to win that they may become a bit lax, and I'm just hoping that's not the reason for only one charge against him. MOO

 

[Alethea]

I think a lot of jurors are going to think that if someone grabs a random girl off the street, throws her in their trunk, at knife point, that right there is very very close to premeditated murder. How many predators who do that, plan to set that girl free and unharmed?

Exactly! This isn't the 64th time a couple with a history of domestic violence got into an argument and it accidentally went too far.

What exactly do men who stalk, follow, run down, and attack women on the street plan to do, exactly? Have a tea party?

 

[MistyWaters]

Thank You. You explained it more clearly than I did. If a predator grabs a girl off the street, and lets her see his face and his vehicle, he is not going to release her unharmed at the end of his 'fun time.' He knew right then she was going to have to die.

We must’ve both been thinking the same thing at the same time because I didn’t notice your post until after I wrote mine.

But you’re exactly right. Given the alleged scenario as we know it, the moment CR “got upset” and began chasing her, there’s no way he’d have later allowed her to walk away alive.

 

[Confusion]

Exactly! This isn't the 64th time a couple with a history of domestic violence got into an argument and it accidentally went too far.

What exactly do men who stalk, follow, run down, and attack women on the street plan to do, exactly? Have a tea party?

Having gone through three rapes at different times and by different guys, I can say that I know for a fact that not all guys who stalk, follow and assault females who have seen his face ALWAYS kill them. Even those who do murder the victim don't always know ahead of time that they're going to do it. In his case, he could have dropped her off out in the middle of nowhere without her phone and been long gone before anyone was looking for him especially since he already had at least 2 identities. I don't believe that's what he had planned, but is there any way to prove he hadn't planned to do that? I'm not going to argue the point any more than I have. The chances of having someone on the jury with my way of looking at things is probably slim to none so they should be able to get the conviction even without the proof. Everybody already knows he's guilty, so what's the difference? MOO

 

[katydid23]

In most cases, that's true. I've known females who were abducted and assaulted but still survived. Of course, it wasn't for lack of trying that 2 of them weren't murdered. I don't doubt that he had planned to kill her, what I do question is whether or not it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People can't be convicted because common sense says they're guilty, and we have no idea what kind of hard evidence they have.

I've had guys circle the block a few times, make lewd comments and "invitations", and eventually drive away, so the fact that he drove past her several times doesn't automatically mean that he planned to kill her. A friend and I were walking down a gravel road one day (long story, don't ask!), and 2 guys came driving up behind us. They stopped and asked where we were going and why we were out there, and we just told them we were going into town. They tried to convince us that it would be smarter to let them give us a ride. We refused and they drove along side of us for about 10-15 minutes before finally giving up and leaving; having a strange guy stop and talk to a young girl, and even follow her for a while, doesn't prove that he planned to kill her.

Looking at the string of events that led to her death definitely makes it appear that he planned to murder her all along, but they still have to prove it. As I've said, I believe he knew what he was going to do, but I'm just hoping they have the evidence to prove it or have an alternative plan in case they don't. A case like this may seem like it'll be so easy to win that they may become a bit lax, and I'm just hoping that's not the reason for only one charge against him. MOO

You make very valid points. There has to be some solid evidence of premeditation. But I think the state will have that evidence by using his own words. He said himself that when she threatened to call the police it made him panic and he chased her down.

So what does that mean? I think it is clear that he went after her at that point because he couldn't let her call 911.

OK, what does that say about premeditation? It says to me that he knew right then she was not walking away from this alive.

 

[katydid23]

Having gone through three rapes at different times and by different guys, I can say that I know for a fact that not all guys who stalk, follow and assault females who have seen his face ALWAYS kill them. Even those who do murder the victim don't always know ahead of time that they're going to do it. In his case, he could have dropped her off out in the middle of nowhere without her phone and been long gone before anyone was looking for him especially since he already had at least 2 identities. I don't believe that's what he had planned, but is there any way to prove he hadn't planned to do that? I'm not going to argue the point any more than I have. The chances of having someone on the jury with my way of looking at things is probably slim to none so they should be able to get the conviction even without the proof. Everybody already knows he's guilty, so what's the difference? MOO

But he pulled out a knife. That is what takes it out of rape and into attempted murder.

 

[Alethea]

Having gone through three rapes at different times and by different guys, I can say that I know for a fact that not all guys who stalk, follow and assault females who have seen his face ALWAYS kill them. Even those who do murder the victim don't always know ahead of time that they're going to do it. In his case, he could have dropped her off out in the middle of nowhere without her phone and been long gone before anyone was looking for him especially since he already had at least 2 identities. I don't believe that's what he had planned, but is there any way to prove he hadn't planned to do that? I'm not going to argue the point any more than I have. The chances of having someone on the jury with my way of looking at things is probably slim to none so they should be able to get the conviction even without the proof. Everybody already knows he's guilty, so what's the difference? MOO

I explained the legal definition of premeditation multiple times on the thread already, using the examples that are used in training federal prosecutors and state attorneys. No one has to believe me or believe the case law, but it is what it is. Prosecutors manage to explain it to jurys who convict violent predators all the time. I, like the jurors and everyone else, will wait to see what the evidence presented at trial establishes. For all we know certain evidence could be ruled inadmissible and then the state has a nearly impossible case no matter what really happened and where the moral guilt chips lie.