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

[Confusion]

Just one question, hope you don’t mind me asking.... For you, it would lean more towards premeditation if he had to go back to his vehicle to get the weapon, and less if he was already armed? If so, I’m just curious about the difference you think that’d make. Is it because then it appears he took time to contemplate?

Yes. If he already had the weapon (probably a knife) on him, he could have just grabbed it from his pocket without really thinking about it. The same thing would be true if he picked up a bottle or other object from the side of the road. If he had to go back to his car (he said he had run down the road with her, so it would be a bit of a distance) to get it, it shows that he made a conscious effort to get a weapon. It's unlikely that he'd go back to his car, grab a knife (?) and run to catch up to her just to cut her shoe laces or something. I believe that if he was acting out of rage or fear, and really wasn't aware of what he was doing (which is highly unlikely anyway) and didn't have a weapon on him, he would have been more likely to tackle her and beat her with his fists, a rock or whatever was available at that time in that place. MOO

 

[MsBetsy]

Yes. If he already had the weapon (probably a knife) on him, he could have just grabbed it from his pocket without really thinking about it. The same thing would be true if he picked up a bottle or other object from the side of the road. If he had to go back to his car (he said he had run down the road with her, so it would be a bit of a distance) to get it, it shows that he made a conscious effort to get a weapon. It's unlikely that he'd go back to his car, grab a knife (?) and run to catch up to her just to cut her shoe laces or something. I believe that if he was acting out of rage or fear, and really wasn't aware of what he was doing (which is highly unlikely anyway) and didn't have a weapon on him, he would have been more likely to tackle her and beat her with his fists, a rock or whatever was available at that time in that place. MOO

How do any of those examples show whether or not it was premeditated? I doubt he would pull a knife out of his pocket in order to stab her without thinking. It would have had to have come to his mind in order to pull it out in the first place. I doubt he used a piece of glass as the wounds were apparently deep enough to cut to the bone. If he planned well enough to attack her when she was in the most isolated location, seemingly the perfect spot since no-one saw anything, why would we assume he did not have a weapon with him? And going back to the car, if anything, might show that he had not originally intended to kill her, but decided to after the confrontation which is still premeditation. I'm not sure how any of these examples indicate whether or not it was premeditated. In fact, all the evidence that is known so far point to premeditation. He chased her down, attacked, and killed her. Then drove to another location and dumped her body all in a matter of minutes. It would seem his original intention was to kill her. How is that not premeditation? Jmo

 

[Confusion]

How do any of those examples show whether or not it was premeditated? I doubt he would pull a knife out of his pocket in order to stab her without thinking. It would have had to have come to his mind in order to pull it out in the first place. I doubt he used a piece of glass as the wounds were apparently deep enough to cut to the bone. If he planned well enough to attack her when she was in the most isolated location, seemingly the perfect spot since no-one saw anything, why would we assume he did not have a weapon with him? And going back to the car, if anything, might show that he had not originally intended to kill her, but decided to after the confrontation which is still premeditation. I'm not sure how any of these examples indicate whether or not it was premeditated. In fact, all the evidence that is known so far point to premeditation. He chased her down, attacked, and killed her. Then drove to another location and dumped her body all in a matter of minutes. It would seem his original intention was to kill her. How is that not premeditation? Jmo

As I said, I'm not going to argue about it. If you want to know my beliefs about premeditation, you can read my previous posts, including the one you quoted. You obviously have never seen someone use a bottle as a weapon if you don't believe they can do much damage. I guess we'd have a hung jury based on the evidence we've been shown so far. MOO

 

[SharonNeedles]

delete

 

[MsBetsy]

How do any of those examples show whether or not it was premeditated? I doubt he would pull a knife out of his pocket in order to stab her without thinking. It would have had to have come to his mind in order to pull it out in the first place. I doubt he used a piece of glass as the wounds were apparently deep enough to cut to the bone. If he planned well enough to attack her when she was in the most isolated location, seemingly the perfect spot since no-one saw anything, why would we assume he did not have a weapon with him? And going back to the car, if anything, might show that he had not originally intended to kill her, but decided to after the confrontation which is still premeditation. I'm not sure how any of these examples indicate whether or not it was premeditated. In fact, all the evidence that is known so far point to premeditation. He chased her down, attacked, and killed her. Then drove to another location and dumped her body all in a matter of minutes. It would seem his original intention was to kill her. How is that not premeditation? Jmo

Deleted, I think I replied to the wrong post!

 

[MsBetsy]

As I said, I'm not going to argue about it. If you want to know my beliefs about premeditation, you can read my previous posts, including the one you quoted. You obviously have never seen someone use a bottle as a weapon if you don't believe they can do much damage. I guess we'd have a hung jury based on the evidence we've been shown so far. MOO

I was not asking you to argue, It is just not clear to me how the examples given showed premeditation or not. And I am not sure its obvious that I don't know how much damage a bottle or glass can do, the only case I can think of was someone who fell through a glass table but I don't think it cut to the bone. I would be interested in seeing a case where it did, however! It just seems unlikely, but I just have not seen it before. Are there any specific cases you are referring to? The only thing I can think of is maybe a car crash, because of the force upon impact.

 

[Confusion]

I was not asking you to argue, It is just not clear to me how the examples given showed premeditation or not. And I am not sure its obvious that I don't know how much damage a bottle or glass can do, the only case I can think of was someone who fell through a glass table but I don't think it cut to the bone. I would be interested in seeing a case where it did, however! It just seems unlikely, but I just have not seen it before. Are there any specific cases you are referring to? The only thing I can think of is maybe a car crash, because of the force upon impact.

BBM
Only what I've seen in my life, and I doubt the details made it to any but the small local paper (if that). I've seen a few people with concussions from having a bottle broken over their heads, and at least one who had to have several stitches from being stabbed with the jagged edges after the broken bottle was used to cause some very deep wounds. None of those I witnessed died, but in one case the "glass" just missed the jugular vein, which would most likely have been fatal since we were about 30 minutes from the nearest hospital and there were no cell phones back then. In another case, the guy ended up with permanent muscle damage, so I don't doubt that cuts from one could be to the bone. I still believe he probably used a knife, but anything's possible until we're told otherwise. MOO

 

[SharonNeedles]

BBM
Only what I've seen in my life, and I doubt the details made it to any but the small local paper (if that). I've seen a few people with concussions from having a bottle broken over their heads, and at least one who had to have several stitches from being stabbed with the jagged edges after the broken bottle was used to cause some very deep wounds. None of those I witnessed died, but in one case the "glass" just missed the jugular vein, which would most likely have been fatal since we were about 30 minutes from the nearest hospital and there were no cell phones back then. In another case, the guy ended up with permanent muscle damage, so I don't doubt that cuts from one could be to the bone. I still believe he probably used a knife, but anything's possible until we're told otherwise. MOO

A quick google search of “broken bottle murder” will give you plenty of examples. Not sure why that’s an issue here tho.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

The arrest affidavit (copied & pasted below along with the link to it) says Mollie's murder by CR was premeditated.
CR was charged with Murder In the First Degree, premeditated.
The judge signed off on the arrest and charge without a grand jury ruling.
There's been no evidence presented at all (except what Agent Rahn loosely paraphrased as reasons why their investigation led to CR's arrest in the press conference when they announced his arrest).
Based on these facts, IMO, the charge is solid, and the evidence no one has seen will back up the charge of Murder in The First Degree when presented at trial next year.

The arrest affidavit (below) says he did (BBM) "with malice aforethought, willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation kill Mollie Cecelia Tibbetts", so LE had evidence of premeditation at the time of his arrest:

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/082118+DCI+Arrest.pdf

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Sorry for the long post, but what does anyone think the odds are CR stated he "blocked" his memory in advance of a possible defense??? He did have approx. a month to plan just in case……..

Generally, the defense to second-degree murder depends on the specific facts of the case. However, two possible defenses in Iowa are insanity or defense of self or another person.

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/2015/701.4.pdf​

Iowa's legal definition of insanity:

701.4 Insanity. A person shall not be convicted of a crime if at the time the crime is committed the person suffers from such a diseased or deranged condition of the mind as to render the person incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act the person is committing or incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in relation to that act. Insanity need not exist for any specific length of time before or after the commission of the alleged criminal act. If the defense of insanity is raised, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant at the time of the crime suffered from such a deranged condition of the mind as to render the defendant incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act the defendant was committing or was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in relation to the act. [C79, 81, §701.4] 84 Acts, ch 1320, §1[

I think the odds are very high (like 99%) that CR planned the "blocked out" portion of what he admitted to during the 5 weeks he had to come up with a story if he got caught. He had 37 days and nights to think on it, he had evenings and weekends during that time when he wasn't working to search the internet for potential stories, etc.
He had to have been well aware that there were 4,000 tips/leads LE was following up on, and a huge amount of attention on Mollie being missing, and he should have a plan for what to say if some evidence lead to him and he was interviewed by LE. Perhaps that is why he was "cooperative" with LE; he already had planned and rehearsed for that day in his mind many times.
By telling the truth to LE about things that happened that evening and what he did to Mollie, and leading them to her body, but not admitting to murdering her because he "blocked his memory", he's got something to hang his hat on so he can plead not guilty to the actual murder. There are plenty of examples of this type of defense if you just do a google search.

 

[MistyWaters]

BBM
Only what I've seen in my life, and I doubt the details made it to any but the small local paper (if that). I've seen a few people with concussions from having a bottle broken over their heads, and at least one who had to have several stitches from being stabbed with the jagged edges after the broken bottle was used to cause some very deep wounds. None of those I witnessed died, but in one case the "glass" just missed the jugular vein, which would most likely have been fatal since we were about 30 minutes from the nearest hospital and there were no cell phones back then. In another case, the guy ended up with permanent muscle damage, so I don't doubt that cuts from one could be to the bone. I still believe he probably used a knife, but anything's possible until we're told otherwise. MOO

I agree with you and my opinion might also change depending on what object or weapon was used to inflict the multiple sharp injuries, the actual location of the wounds and how many there were. But I’d also be left asking myself why still, why’d he need to do that? Mollie was unarmed.

Because then my imagination leads me to one of most outrageous defence scenarios I can imagine and that is any suggestion of self-defence on the part of CR. Such as, after CR tackled Mollie she viciously fought back - as she’d had every right to do, after being chased and tackled, I’d have no doubt she was greatly in fear for her life - and so CR used a ______ to protect himself so he didn’t get injured or hurt. But I just don’t think that type of defence would fly because “poor me and victim blaming” is seldom successful especially when it’s a case of a violent attacker murdering an innocent stranger. Otherwise all murderers would benefit by reduced sentences if their victims fought for their life, which in turn diminishes the right of self defence.

 

[Confusion]

The arrest affidavit (copied & pasted below along with the link to it) says Mollie's murder by CR was premeditated.
CR was charged with Murder In the First Degree, premeditated.
The judge signed off on the arrest and charge without a grand jury ruling.
There's been no evidence presented at all (except what Agent Rahn loosely paraphrased as reasons why their investigation led to CR's arrest in the press conference when they announced his arrest).
Based on these facts, IMO, the charge is solid, and the evidence no one has seen will back up the charge of Murder in The First Degree when presented at trial next year.

The arrest affidavit (below) says he did (BBM) "with malice aforethought, willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation kill Mollie Cecelia Tibbetts", so LE had evidence of premeditation at the time of his arrest:

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/082118+DCI+Arrest.pdf

Last edited: Sep 29, 2018

I now that's what the affidavit says, but not everyone is convicted of (or even guilty of) crimes written on affidavits. There still has to be evidence to convince the jury. Read the book "Bison King" if you want an example. As you said, there's been no evidence presented at all, which is why I'm not ready to say it was definitely premeditated. It's definitely a possibility, but I'd need to see some of the evidence if I were on the jury (and also before "convicting" him here). If the court can add the lesser charges as Alethea has said, there won't be any problem; if they can only convict on what he's being charged with, there could be. MOO

@SharonNeedles I don't know why it's an issue either. I had just said that if he pulled a knife from his pocket or grabbed a bottle or some other object on the side of the road, it wouldn't show premeditation to me. Maybe I'm not writing as clearly as I think I am.

 

[The Farm]

Happy Sunday all,
Just checking in to see if there was any news,,,,,waiting and following.

 

[Confusion]

I agree with you and my opinion might also change depending on what object or weapon was used to inflict the multiple sharp injuries, the actual location of the wounds and how many there were. But I’d also be left asking myself why still, why’d he need to do that? Mollie was unarmed.

Because then my imagination leads me to one of most outrageous defence scenarios I can imagine and that is any suggestion of self-defence on the part of CR. Such as, after CR tackled Mollie she viciously fought back - as she’d had every right to do, after being chased and tackled, I’d have no doubt she was greatly in fear for her life - and so CR used a ______ to protect himself so he didn’t get injured or hurt. But I just don’t think that type of defence would fly because “poor me and victim blaming” is seldom successful especially when it’s a case of a violent attacker murdering an innocent stranger. Otherwise all murderers would benefit by reduced sentences if their victims fought for their life, which in turn diminishes the right of self defence.

I may be wrong about this, but I don't believe you can claim self-defense if you initiate the altercation. I agree that there's little to no chance of that one flying, but I wouldn't be surprised if they tried it.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I can think of lots of ways, without knowing what any of the evidence LE has will turn out to be, that CR premeditated Mollie's murder and then dragged her body and hid it in the cornfield covered up with corn stalks.

(BBM)
Premeditation Definition:
Specific intent to commit a crime for some period of time, however short, before the actual crime.
Premeditation Definition

However "short of a time period" before the "actual crime", seconds or minutes went by during which CR took a weapon in hand that he then used to inflict "multiple sharp force injuries" on Mollie that were the cause of her death.

In addition, CR has a history of cyber-stalking young women and "creeping them out", and he stalked Mollie in person that evening. When she responded to him running up next to her by threatening to call the police, he doesn't recall what happened next supposedly, until he "came to" and realized she had blood on the side of her head and she was in the trunk of his car.

Regardless of when exactly and how he inflicted the wounds that caused her death, there were seconds or minutes when he took a deadly weapon in hand with the intent to harm her/silence her/physically stop her from struggling against his assault. Then the actual crime was committed - murder.

That he premeditated her death is crystal clear to me, as it was to LE and the judge who approved his arrest for premeditated murder.

JMOHO

 

[Mica]

I think the odds are very high (like 99%) that CR planned the "blocked out" portion of what he admitted to during the 5 weeks he had to come up with a story if he got caught. He had 37 days and nights to think on it, he had evenings and weekends during that time when he wasn't working to search the internet for potential stories, etc.
He had to have been well aware that there were 4,000 tips/leads LE was following up on, and a huge amount of attention on Mollie being missing, and he should have a plan for what to say if some evidence lead to him and he was interviewed by LE. Perhaps that is why he was "cooperative" with LE; he already had planned and rehearsed for that day in his mind many times.
By telling the truth to LE about things that happened that evening and what he did to Mollie, and leading them to her body, but not admitting to murdering her because he "blocked his memory", he's got something to hang his hat on so he can plead not guilty to the actual murder. There are plenty of examples of this type of defense if you just do a google search.

I totally agree with you on all points.

I also wonder what happened in his past to cause him to “block his memory” when angry. He said it happened before. I don’t believe a word he says. It’s a convenient excuse that allows him to provide no details of how he murdered poor Mollie.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I totally agree with you on all points.

I also wonder what happened in his past to cause him to “block his memory” when angry. He said it happened before. I don’t believe a word he says. It’s a convenient excuse that allows him to provide no details of how he murdered poor Mollie.

That's right... he's a snake in the grass, with excuses up the wazoo and no moral compunction. He is despicable. IMO

In addition, CR got and held false identification to work at his job, so he's a liar/faker and was already a criminal for that.

Whatever his past was, or his memory blocks are about if even true, he has no excuses that will stand up in court for what he did to Mollie. This is such a tragedy. None of his excuses will play well in court, and I can't fathom 12 people on the jury swallowing anything he says hook, line, and sinker. No way no how. JMOHO

 

[SharonNeedles]

I think we’ve pretty much established that some of us think First Degree has already been proven and some of us don’t. No real need to continue beating a dead horse, is there?

 

[MistyWaters]

That's right... he's a snake in the grass, with excuses up the wazoo and no moral compunction. He is despicable. IMO
Whatever his past was, or his memory blocks are about if even true, he has no excuses that will stand up in court for what he did to Mollie. This is such a tragedy. None of his excuses will play well in court, and I can't fathom 12 people on the jury swallowing anything he says hook, line, and sinker. No way no how. JMOHO

Oddly, I’ve never perceived “blocked” his memory to be anything more than he chose to not think about it, nor talk about it, and not that he claimed to have a medical condition involving involuntary memory loss. Nor do I think he was using it as excuse considering all the other detailed information he provided involving Mollie’s death, both before and after.

In every example I can think of using the verb “block”, the action is both deliberate and intentional. - block off a road, block a punch, block a leak....block a memory.

In that case, the only other word in the English language that’s the least bit similar to “block” one’s memory is to “forget” but that’s even less appropriate because what’s forgotten may not always be remembered. To forget something as significant as murder certainty would involve mental impairment. So JMO but “block” a memory is the closest translation to something that’s also very similar to “choose to forget”.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Happy Sunday all,
Just checking in to see if there was any news,,,,,waiting and following.

Not that I've been able to find doing internet research, and nothing on this thread in well over a month. Waiting for the slow wheels of justice to grind into place for Mollie. The DA on her case is likely overwhelmed with evidence processing, and probably having to walk on eggshells...