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

[girlhasnoname]

I haven’t looked at his charges in a while. But I don’t recall 2nd degree murder in the charges. Am I incorrect?!!

We were speculating as to what his defense might me. No changes/additions to the original charges that I'm aware of.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The Iowa courts are not really backed up, and had CR not waived his right to a speedy trial the state would need to bring him to trial within 90 days. In the end both sides agree to a date that they feel gives them enough time. But yes, either side could request a continuance which may or may not be granted. I have no idea whether to expect that in this case or not.

If he had exercised his constitutional right to a speedy trial even if the DA asked for a continuance the judge would have to deny it.

Nothing overrules the right to have a speedy trial. In most states a speedy trial must happen in 180 days.

But now he has waived his right the continuance motions filed from here on out will be filed by the defense team for the most part. They will try to stall the case way back to a crawl. This always happens in cases like this.

Over the decades of researching murder cases one thing I have learned to pay close attention to is whether the defendant opts for a speedy trial or waives it and is willing to give up their freedom by sitting in jail for years awaiting trial. I have found it not only interesting but quite revealing.

I cant remember any innocent defendant who was willing to do so.

It's actually more advantageous for a defendant to demand a speedy trial. It puts tremendous pressure on the state to complete their investigation in a short amount of time including getting all of the forensic results back in a short amount of time.

When they do waive those rights the state will continue their ongoing investigation gathering more harmful evidence against the defendant up and until trial.

The only advantages for a defendant to waive their rights is it stalls the final outcome from happening quickly.

Plus being in jail is a far better environment than being locked down in a restricted prison where the rules are much more restrictive.

Jmo though

 

[SharonNeedles]

If he had exercised his constitutional right to a speedy trial even if the DA asked for a continuance the judge would have to deny it.

Nothing overrules the right to have a speedy trial. In most states a speedy trial must happen in 180 days.

But now he has waived his right the continuance motions filed from here on out will be filed by the defense team for the most part. They will try to stall the case way back to a crawl. This always happens in cases like this.

Over the decades of researching murder cases one thing I have learned to pay close attention to is whether the defendant opts for a speedy trial or waives it and is willing to give up their freedom by sitting in jail for years awaiting trial. I have found it not only interesting but quite revealing.

I cant remember any innocent defendant who was willing to do so.

It's actually more advantageous for a defendant to demand a speedy trial. It puts tremendous pressure on the state to complete their investigation in a short amount of time including getting all of the forensic results back in a short amount of time.

When they do waive those rights the state will continue their ongoing investigation gathering more harmful evidence against the defendant up and until trial.

The only advantages for a defendant to waive their rights is it stalls the final outcome from happening quickly.

Plus being in jail is a far better environment than being locked down in a restricted prison where the rules are much more restrictive.

Jmo though

In this case I have to disagree, a speedy trial would not work to the advantage of the defendant. The Iowa speedy trial rule is only 90 days and, unless the state stumbled across some new bombshell evidence, the extra time doesn’t add anything to the strength of their case. Meanwhile the defense now has a lot more time, both to let emotions simmer down a bit and to go fishing for whatever they can find to support their case (or, in my opinion, to muddy the water enough to cause reasonable doubt).

As far as the emotions simmering down, I’m truly amazed at my local level how many people have forgotten the case, and have even forgotten Mollie’s name. Granted I was more obsessed with the case than most, but over the summer we had workplace discussions about Mollie every single day.

 

[The Farm]

As far as the emotions simmering down, I’m truly amazed at my local level how many people have forgotten the case, and have even forgotten Mollie’s name. Granted I was more obsessed with the case than most, but over the summer we had workplace discussions about Mollie every single day.

Are you serious? How can something so tragic and wrong be forgotten so fast, especially when the perpetrator has not even been brought to justice yet????

 

[SharonNeedles]

Are you serious? How can something so tragic and wrong be forgotten so fast, especially when the perpetrator has not even been brought to justice yet????

I’ve wondered that myself, but then I realized I’m as guilty as anyone. I’m going to remember names and details in this case because I’m emotionally invested. But when somebody brought up Celia Barquin Arozamena I had to google her name.

 

[The Farm]

I don't know, if that happened as per say in my immediate area I would be watching to see what happened but that is me.
On here there are so many cases and when they are lingering in nowhere land they are easy to forget.
When is the trial date set, was it January? See I already forgot.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

In this case I have to disagree, a speedy trial would not work to the advantage of the defendant. The Iowa speedy trial rule is only 90 days and, unless the state stumbled across some new bombshell evidence, the extra time doesn’t add anything to the strength of their case. Meanwhile the defense now has a lot more time, both to let emotions simmer down a bit and to go fishing for whatever they can find to support their case (or, in my opinion, to muddy the water enough to cause reasonable doubt).

As far as the emotions simmering down, I’m truly amazed at my local level how many people have forgotten the case, and have even forgotten Mollie’s name. Granted I was more obsessed with the case than most, but over the summer we had workplace discussions about Mollie every single day.

I totally respect that you disagree with me but I also respectfully disagree with your conclusion and the reasons given.

In your post you suggest the state has no bombshell evidence but if that were true the defense would jump on that opportunity to quickly go forward instead of waiving it.

If he had chosen to go forward in only 90 days it wouldnt have given the state proper time to gather more evidence. They would have to go with what they had amassed in just 90 days which is a very short time in the criminal justice system. There would be a lot less evidence for the defense to have to refute.

So I'm not sure I understand when you say it wouldn't be advantageous to go forward in an expedited manner.

How do any of us know what the state's evidence is? They certainly could already have bombshell evidence in their possession and had it during the 90 day timeline

This may be the very reason he waived his right to a speedy trial to prolong the inevitable outcome like so many other defendants have done.

It's very common for the state to hold their best evidence close their chest. They will only divulge such evidence when the presiding judge sets a firm date for all discovery to be turned over to the defense before trial begins. Until then they will submit other discovery a little along.

This is a commonly used defense strategy when they know the evidence is very damaging against the defendant.

But waiving the speedy trial rule is very advantageous to the state since it allows them ample time for an ongoing investigation which always continues in every case.

I have even seen new evidence come in right before trial. Just because the suspect is arrested and charged never means the police shut the investigation down and close the murder book.

In fact in all cases after probable cause to arrest and charge has been met... which is a much lower burden than BARD ...is when any ongoing investigation kicks into high gear and will continue right up to trial time.

I'm not sure why you see this particular case as being somehow different than other cases? I dont see anything about this case that makes it different than so many other countless other cases including using the 'I blacked out' excuse.

Actually I already think from the evidence we are already aware of it puts the state on firm ground. It will only get worse as the investigation continues.

As far as the defense hoping it erodes from people's minds if there is a long delay I agree.

However that never works either. No matter how short or long it takes for it to come to trial when it does happen everyone will have vivid memories of what happened to Mollie.

That is why the defense usually request a COV even years later. Even the defense already knows no one in the county is going to forget what happened to Mollie even if they stall and prolong it coming to trial.

I believe the reason he waived his speedy trial is because he and his defense team already know they will have the evidence to convict.

Like I said previously a guilty suspect would much rather spend years in jail where the rules aren't nearly as stringent as it is in a highly structured maximum security prison.

I really dont see him as being any different than the others who also waived their right. Those who were also willing to give up all of their freedoms by sitting in jail for years with some spending 3 or 4 years awaiting trial or even longer.

The reasonable doubt must be reasonable and not some imaginary doubt so I don't think he will be able to interject reasonable doubt at all. What is he going to say? Aliens swooped down and did these horrific acts and framed me?' Just kidding by using this example of course.

Oh do they have preliminary hearings in Iowa and if so did his defense also waive that right too? That decision to waive PH or not is revealing in of itself.

I personally think he and his defense team already knows the evidence against him is strong and know it will most likely end in a conviction.

What punishment is the state wanting for this defendant? Are they going for LWOP or the death penalty? Tia

Thanks for replying.

Ocean

 

[SharonNeedles]

I totally respect that you disagree with me but I also respectfully disagree with your conclusion and the reasons given.

In your post you suggest the state has no bombshell evidence but if that were true the defense would jump on that opportunity to quickly go forward instead of waiving it.

If he had chosen to go forward in only 90 days it wouldnt have given the state proper time to gather more evidence. They would have to go with what they had amassed in just 90 days which is a very short time in the criminal justice system. There would be a lot less evidence for the defense to have to refute.

So I'm not sure I understand when you say it wouldn't be advantageous to go forward in an expedited manner.

How do any of us know what the state's evidence is? They certainly could already have bombshell evidence in their possession and had it during the 90 day timeline

This may be the very reason he waived his right to a speedy trial to prolong the inevitable outcome like so many other defendants have done.

It's very common for the state to hold their best evidence close their chest. They will only divulge such evidence when the presiding judge sets a firm date for all discovery to be turned over to the defense before trial begins. Until then they will submit other discovery a little along.

This is a commonly used defense strategy when they know the evidence is very damaging against the defendant.

But waiving the speedy trial rule is very advantageous to the state since it allows them ample time for an ongoing investigation which always continues in every case.

I have even seen new evidence come in right before trial. Just because the suspect is arrested and charged never means the police shut the investigation down and close the murder book.

In fact in all cases after probable cause to arrest and charge has been met... which is a much lower burden than BARD ...is when any ongoing investigation kicks into high gear and will continue right up to trial time.

I'm not sure why you see this particular case as being somehow different than other cases? I dont see anything about this case that makes it different than so many other countless other cases including using the 'I blacked out' excuse.

Actually I already think from the evidence we are already aware of it puts the state on firm ground. It will only get worse as the investigation continues.

As far as the defense hoping it erodes from people's minds if there is a long delay I agree.

However that never works either. No matter how short or long it takes for it to come to trial when it does happen everyone will have vivid memories of what happened to Mollie.

That is why the defense usually request a COV even years later. Even the defense already knows no one in the county is going to forget what happened to Mollie even if they stall and prolong it coming to trial.

I believe the reason he waived his speedy trial is because he and his defense team already know they will have the evidence to convict.

Like I said previously a guilty suspect would much rather spend years in jail where the rules aren't nearly as stringent as it is in a highly structured maximum security prison.

I really dont see him as being any different than the others who also waived their right. Those who were also willing to give up all of their freedoms by sitting in jail for years with some spending 3 or 4 years awaiting trial or even longer.

The reasonable doubt must be reasonable and not some imaginary doubt so I don't think he will be able to interject reasonable doubt at all. What is he going to say? Aliens swooped down and did these horrific acts and framed me?' Just kidding by using this example of course.

Oh do they have preliminary hearings in Ohio and if so did his defense also waive that right too? That decision to waive PH or not is revealing in of itself.

I personally think he and his defense team already knows the evidence against him is strong and know it will most likely end in a conviction.

What punishment is the state wanting for this defendant? Are they going for LWOP or the death penalty? Tia

Thanks for replying.

Ocean

You realize it's the defense that has the right to a speedy trial or to waive it, right?

ETA: No death penalty in Iowa, First Degree Murder is automatic Life w/o Parole.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

You realize it's the defense that has the right to a speedy trial or to waive it, right?

ETA: No death penalty in Iowa, First Degree Murder is automatic Life w/o Parole.

LOL! You're kidding right?

I just posted two long posts discussing in great detail the defendant's right to a speedy trial or having the constitutional right to waive it. I also stated my opinion on why HE waived it.

So I am totally confused by this post.

I have known about that constitutional right for defendants for decades.

Since becoming a member here in 2004 anyone who has posted with me knows I am well versed on constitutional rights of defendants. I dont discuss anything without having the knowledge to do so.

I would think everyone at WS knows that by now since most murder defendant chooses to waive it rather than opting for a speedy trial.

The same topic is on many other threads ...not just this one.

What about PHs in Iowa? Do they have them and if so did he waive that too? Tia

Too bad they dont have the death penalty.

 

[SharonNeedles]

LOL! You're kidding right?

I just posted two long posts discussing in great detail the defendant's right to a speedy trial or having the constitutional right to waive it. I also stated my opinion on why HE waived it.

So I am totally confused by this post.

I have known about that constitutional right for defendants for decades.

Since becoming a member here in 2004 anyone who has posted with me knows I am well versed on constitutional rights of defendants. I dont discuss anything without having the knowledge to do so.

I would think everyone at WS knows that by now since most murder defendant chooses to waive it rather than opting for a speedy trial.

The same topic is on many other threads ...not just this one.

What about PHs in Iowa? Do they have them and if so did he waive that too? Tia

Too bad they dont have the death penalty.

Your wording wasn't clear to me, I thought you switched from the Defense waiving to the the state then back again. But it's been a long weekend and I'm trying to read this on my iphone after several adult beverages, so there's that!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Your wording wasn't clear to me, I thought you switched from the Defense waiving to the the state then back again. But it's been a long weekend and I'm trying to read this on my iphone after several adult beverages, so there's that!

Okay.. no problem. I usually try to make my posts very clear and I'm sorry I didnt do it this time for you.

I was tired at the time too since I have been so busy buying gifts for our very large family for Christmas.

I may have failed to be as clear as I always strive to be no matter the subject matter.

Take care.

Ocean

 

[Seahorseladydi]

As far as the emotions simmering down, I’m truly amazed at my local level how many people have forgotten the case, and have even forgotten Mollie’s name. Granted I was more obsessed with the case than most, but over the summer we had workplace discussions about Mollie every single day.

*snipped by me*

This absolutely breaks my heart! I will be honest and tell you I don’t remember the perpetrators name, nor do I ever care to! I will always remember Mollie as I always remember the names of the kiddos I get caught up in. So many over the years, I close my eyes and I see their beautiful smiles because that is how I want to remember them.
I honestly hate it when the media constantly uses the perpetrators name! NO! Use the victims names let people remember them not the evil that hurt so many left behind.

Just my thoughts.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Anyone...will the defendant CR be present for the trial mgmt. hearing on 12/12 @ 9:30 am?

 

[The Farm]

I have no idea.

 

[Mica]

Looks like Trial Management Hearing is cancelled.

See attached from the Court Portal.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Looks like Trial Management Hearing is cancelled.

See attached from the Court Portal.

Thanks Mica, wonder why?

 

[The Farm]

Delay, delay, delay?????

 

[MistyWaters]

Looks like Trial Management Hearing is cancelled.

See attached from the Court Portal.

That’s odd, “cancelled” as opposed to rescheduled. This makes me seriously wonder if an announcement of a plea deal is looming.

 

[SharonNeedles]

Looks like Trial Management Hearing is cancelled.

See attached from the Court Portal.

Oh my gosh, they’re still receiving postcards?

 

[PommyMommy]

That’s odd, “cancelled” as opposed to rescheduled. This makes me seriously wonder if an announcement of a plea deal is looming.

That was the first thing I thought of as well. MOO