Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #47

[Niner]

Thursday, November 14th:
*Suppression Hearing continues (@ 9am CT) – IA – Mollie Cecilia Tibbetts (20) (July 18, 2018, Brooklyn; found Aug. 21, 2018) – *Cristhian Bahena Rivera aka John Budd (24) arrested (8/21/18), charged (8/22/18) & arraigned (9/19/18) with 1st degree murder. Plead not guilty. $5M cash only bond.
ICE logged an immigration detainer on Rivera. Confessed to killing Mollie.
Trial set to begin on 2/4/20 (should last about 6 to 8 days). Trial moved from Poweshiek County to Woodbury County.
Court hearings from 8/22/18 thru 10/22/19 reference post #400 here:
Found Deceased - IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #47
10/24/19 Update: The state agreed with the defense that any statements Rivera made between 11:30 p.m. and 5:50 a.m. should be suppressed, but argued that the prosecution should have the right to use any of the statements made at that time to rebut testimony. Suppression hearing on 11/13. Trial will start on 2/4/20.
11/13/19 Update: Poweshiek County Sheriff's Deputy Steve Kivi took the witness stand. He testified that he couldn't communicate with Rivera due to a language barrier, but someone else was able to translate. DCI Agent Trent Vileta testified that he was present for Rivera's interview with police. He said they had a fluent Spanish speaker from the Iowa City Police Dept help conduct the interview to prevent anything from getting "lost in translation." Officer Pamela Romero testified Wednesday that she tried to read Rivera his Miranda warnings from memory during the Aug. 20, 2018, interrogation. She said she didn’t realize until much later that she had inadvertently failed to warn him that his statements could be used against him in court. DCI Special Agent Scott Green testified that Rivera could have left the Sheriff's Office at any time before his arrest. Judge is hearing arguments over whether evidence against Cristhian Bahena Rivera should be thrown out. Hearing continues on 11/14.

 

[Bravo]

Not worried at all about this case. Defense is just doing what they do. Even without the confession there is plenty of evidence. IMO

 

[rosesfromangels]

Not worried at all about this case. Defense is just doing what they do. Even without the confession there is plenty of evidence. IMO

I wish I were as confident. Not having your Miranda can toss a case out. That would be a travesty.

amateur opinion and speculation

 

[Gardenista]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=723248714847163

 

[Niner]

what's it say - @Gardenista - my speakers are on the blink!

 

[Gardenista]

what's it say - @Gardenista - my speakers are on the blink!

Not sure, I'm not listening. I'm just posting for the thread

 

[Seattle1]

what's it say - @Gardenista - my speakers are on the blink!

I only watched the first hour:

The first witness (woman in blue blouse ) was on the stand for about 30 minutes.

The witness testified that she's a US citizen but did not speak one word in English including the alphabet when spelling her name.

Witness was identified as CR's aunt by marriage (her husband is CR's uncle).

Witness described CR as jovial and funny around his family but shy and quiet around others.

Witness said CR lived and was living with his girlfriend Iris for about 3 years (assuming this is the mother of his child).

Witness testified her husband's sister-in-law notified her husband that CR was taken from his job to the PD. As soon as they heard this news the witness, her husband, and another brother-in-law went to the PD. She said they arrived at about 8:30 pm.

The witness testified that after arriving at the PD, they entered the building and stayed in what sounded to me like a foyer entry as there were no chairs.

Witness says they stood in this entrance from about 8:40 pm until about 11:40 pm.

It was almost midnight when they finally saw somebody at the PD approach them in the foyer. She described them as a Hispanic woman and a man. (The Hispanic woman was identified as the interpreter and the man was not identified. I'm assuming the man was a detective).

Witness said the interpreter was courteous and exchanged greetings with them in Spanish - asking if they were CR's relatives. Witness said they asked her what was happening and whether they needed to call a lawyer for CR. Witness said the interpreter said CR didn't need a lawyer and they were almost finished with questioning him and he would be ready to leave in about 15 minutes. At 1:30 AM they still had not seen CR and it was well past 15 minutes. They decided to go home.

The witness was also asked if there were cameras in the room where they were standing and she responded -- yes, it's the police station. She confirmed nobody ever came to talk to them until they'd been there for 3 hours and saw the interpreter.

Witness said that CR had a 9th-grade education.

She also said that police in Mexico are much different than the US (Mexican police are violent and will strike you if you don't do what's asked).

On cross -- witness said that all 3 family members waiting in the PD had cell phones.

Said she wasn't familiar with what CR did at his job.

Confirmed she saw CR at holiday parties and family gatherings, and only visited him once at the farm -- he typically came to their house.

She didn't know how her sister-in-law found out CR taken to the PD.

Confirmed she never saw CR with any mental problems or weaknesses.

Confirmed CR drove a black car but didn't know model/year.

The next witness was the brother-in-law of witness (Luis Medina) -- he speaks English and is a naturalized US Citizen of about 4 years. Said he does electrical work.

Confirmed CR mostly speaks Spanish (witness said he speaks mostly English as he's been in the US since age 5).

Witness said he thought CR was in US for about 9 years and had no prior contact with police.

He learned CR was at PD being questioned about 7 pm.

He picked up his 14 yr old from football practice and went to Sheriff's office. He entered the foyer and pushed button that unlocked the door and let him into the lobby area where he sat down.

He talked to two plainclothes officers that asked who he was and how he knew CR. Told him it would be about 15 minutes more questioning of CR.

Twice he was told it would be another 15 minutes.

The witness was also there when the interpreter came out.

He continued waiting and pushed the button for the speaker and could never get back inside the lobby. Said he was being ignored. He left about 1:30 AM.

Cross-examination.

Confirmed he's known CR for about 9 years. Said CR was young when he met him and asked him if he wanted to go to High School when he first arrived the US.

Confirmed CR never called him or sent him a text that night.

Confirmed he was at the PD for about an hour before the other relatives arrived the PD.

Confirmed CR played on a local, recreational soccer team when not working.

Confirmed CR was the Godfather of his daughter. Said he gave CR a vehicle once but not very close to him.

 

[Niner]

Thanks a bunch Seattle!

and the second part?....

 

[Niner]

From the court site - not much.... and no "next" hearing date listed.

Event Filed By Filed Create Date Last Updated Action Date

APPLICATION TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO RECORDS FRESE CHAD R 11/14/2019 11/14/2019 11/14/2019
Comments: MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL OR ENHANCED SECURITY LEVEL

ORDER ON INTERPRETER OR TRANSLATOR FEE ITEMIZATION YATES JOEL D 11/14/2019 11/14/2019 11/14/2019

INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM 11/14/2019 11/14/2019 11/14/2019
Comments: EXPENSES $2451.00

INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM 11/13/2019 11/13/2019 11/13/2019
Comments: EXPENSES $3200.00


link: https://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TIndexFrm

 

[scapa]

Well, on Law and Order, which has long been my infallible guide to legal process, this sort of scenario generally resulted in a saw-off, with the testimony excluded but the body and associated evidence admissible. So that's what I'll hang my hat on, since it seems to preserve more of the spirit of the law than admitting or excluding both.

Still, this was an egregious mistake in a high-profile case, when you'd imagine there would have been immense pressure to do EVERYTHING by the book. Where were the supervising officers in all of this mess?

 

[katydid23]

I wish I were as confident. Not having your Miranda can toss a case out. That would be a travesty.

amateur opinion and speculation

There was a Miranda ---twice it was given. The first time there was one sentence left out, and the prosecution says that sentence is not one in the original Miranda warning, which is the one legally required.

The 2nd time it was given, it was given in full, correctly. So there was a 5 hr period that the interview might be discarded.

But we have her blood in the trunk of his car, and video images of him stalking her moments before she was kidnapped by him.

 

[Seattle1]

I only watched the first hour:

The first witness (woman in blue blouse ) was on the stand for about 30 minutes.

The witness testified that she's a US citizen but did not speak one word in English including the alphabet when spelling her name.

Witness was identified as CR's aunt by marriage (her husband is CR's uncle).

Witness described CR as jovial and funny around his family but shy and quiet around others.

Witness said CR lived and was living with his girlfriend Iris for about 3 years (assuming this is the mother of his child).

Witness testified her husband's sister-in-law notified her husband that CR was taken from his job to the PD. As soon as they heard this news the witness, her husband, and another brother-in-law went to the PD. She said they arrived at about 8:30 pm.

The witness testified that after arriving at the PD, they entered the building and stayed in what sounded to me like a foyer entry as there were no chairs.

Witness says they stood in this entrance from about 8:40 pm until about 11:40 pm.

It was almost midnight when they finally saw somebody at the PD approach them in the foyer. She described them as a Hispanic woman and a man. (The Hispanic woman was identified as the interpreter and the man was not identified. I'm assuming the man was a detective).

Witness said the interpreter was courteous and exchanged greetings with them in Spanish - asking if they were CR's relatives. Witness said they asked her what was happening and whether they needed to call a lawyer for CR. Witness said the interpreter said CR didn't need a lawyer and they were almost finished with questioning him and he would be ready to leave in about 15 minutes. At 1:30 AM they still had not seen CR and it was well past 15 minutes. They decided to go home.

The witness was also asked if there were cameras in the room where they were standing and she responded -- yes, it's the police station. She confirmed nobody ever came to talk to them until they'd been there for 3 hours and saw the interpreter.

Witness said that CR had a 9th-grade education.

She also said that police in Mexico are much different than the US (Mexican police are violent and will strike you if you don't do what's asked).

On cross -- witness said that all 3 family members waiting in the PD had cell phones.

Said she wasn't familiar with what CR did at his job.

Confirmed she saw CR at holiday parties and family gatherings, and only visited him once at the farm -- he typically came to their house.

She didn't know how her sister-in-law found out CR taken to the PD.

Confirmed she never saw CR with any mental problems or weaknesses.

Confirmed CR drove a black car but didn't know model/year.

The next witness was the brother-in-law of witness (Luis Medina) -- he speaks English and is a naturalized US Citizen of about 4 years. Said he does electrical work.

Confirmed CR mostly speaks Spanish (witness said he speaks mostly English as he's been in the US since age 5).

Witness said he thought CR was in US for about 9 years and had no prior contact with police.

He learned CR was at PD being questioned about 7 pm.

He picked up his 14 yr old from football practice and went to Sheriff's office. He entered the foyer and pushed button that unlocked the door and let him into the lobby area where he sat down.

He talked to two plainclothes officers that asked who he was and how he knew CR. Told him it would be about 15 minutes more questioning of CR.

Twice he was told it would be another 15 minutes.

The witness was also there when the interpreter came out.

He continued waiting and pushed the button for the speaker and could never get back inside the lobby. Said he was being ignored. He left about 1:30 AM.

Cross-examination.

Confirmed he's known CR for about 9 years. Said CR was young when he met him and asked him if he wanted to go to High School when he first arrived the US.

Confirmed CR never called him or sent him a text that night.

Confirmed he was at the PD for about an hour before the other relatives arrived the PD.

Confirmed CR played on a local, recreational soccer team when not working.

Confirmed CR was the Godfather of his daughter. Said he gave CR a vehicle once but not very close to him.

@Niner

Part II of the hearing:

Defense attempted to offer an affidavit by CR as an exhibit into evidence and the prosecution objected to the affidavit because it was a sworn statement and by its nature, they should be allowed to cross-examine the affiant CR.

The court agreed.

The defense would not allow CR to be cross-examined so the affidavit was not allowed as an exhibit.

(The affidavit was said to relate the consulate issue).

Expert Witness Kimberly Fenn, Ph.D. at Michigan State Univ -- she's a researcher re. Psychology and sleep deprivation and cognitive processing.

2016 the witness collaborated on a book with 2 others re. sleep deprivation and false confessions.

Witness testified to authoring several papers and experiments on the subject.

Witness alleged she did a limited review of the case file and learned about CR's work schedule beginning about 5 AM (manual labor).

Witness viewed a slide show of the defendant's head on the table, slumped back, hat covering his face -- evidence of sleep per defense.

Cross-examination of witness:

Witness confirmed she's never testified as expert witness in criminal court.

Witness confirmed she has about 6-7 years of research experience.

Witness confirmed she only saw screen shots of the video interviews of CR and LE, and not the videos.

Prosecutor essentially showed the witness is an academic, and not experienced with criminal trial matter.

Witness Brian Leslie - Criminal Case Consultants

Former Police Chief in Canada -- about 14 years total experience.

2,000 interviews.

Explained Reid Technique interrogation.

Certified expert witness in US and CN court.

Viewed transcripts because he doesn't understand Spanish.

Break for lunch -- and video posted concludes.

 

[rosesfromangels]

There was a Miranda ---twice it was given. The first time there was one sentence left out, and the prosecution says that sentence is not one in the original Miranda warning, which is the one legally required.

The 2nd time it was given, it was given in full, correctly. So there was a 5 hr period that the interview might be discarded.

But we have her blood in the trunk of his car, and video images of him stalking her moments before she was kidnapped by him.

Praying you are right.

 

[PommyMommy]

Agent: Mollie Tibbetts' body would have been found without confession

From the article dated Nov 13, 2019:

[...]

Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation agent Trent Vileta testified Wednesday at a hearing to determine if incriminating statements made by Cristhian Bahena Rivera can be used at his murder trial.

Rivera’s defense argues that evidence from a police interview that began on Aug. 20, 2018, should be suppressed because he had not been read his legal rights.

Prosecutors concede that’s true but argue that Tibbetts’ body would have been discovered anyway and therefore the comments should be admissible. Vileta says farmers would have spotted Tibbetts’ fluorescent running shoes when harvesting the field where she was dumped.

[...]

 

[SharonNeedles]

Witness Brian Leslie - Criminal Case Consultants

Former Police Chief in Canada -- about 14 years total experience.

2,000 interviews.

Explained Reid Technique interrogation.

Certified expert witness in US and CN court.

Viewed transcripts because he doesn't understand Spanish.

Break for lunch -- and video posted concludes.

This part of the defense bothers me, and this is the first time I’ve heard critique of the Reid Technique mentioned in this case. It bothers me because as a whole criticism of the technique is proven valid, it absolutely does lead to false confessions and ESL subjects are especially susceptible. Don’t get me wrong, I think the fact that CR led investigators to Mollie’s body establishes that this is not a false confession, but the defense legal team is doing a surprisingly effective job of creating the foundation of reasonable doubt.

I’ve said it all along, this case is far from a slam dunk.

 

[Bravo]

I just don't see a Jury not convicting. Forensics and him leading them to her body will be tough for the Defense to explain away. IMO

 

[Niner]

Thank you (again!!) Seattle1!!

Just checked the court site - no future hearing yet posted on there....

 

[Seattle1]

This part of the defense bothers me, and this is the first time I’ve heard critique of the Reid Technique mentioned in this case. It bothers me because as a whole criticism of the technique is proven valid, it absolutely does lead to false confessions and ESL subjects are especially susceptible. Don’t get me wrong, I think the fact that CR led investigators to Mollie’s body establishes that this is not a false confession, but the defense legal team is doing a surprisingly effective job of creating the foundation of reasonable doubt.

I’ve said it all along, this case is far from a slam dunk.

Actually, in the part of the video that I reviewed, the expert was
not critical of the Reid Technique.

This witness just started his testimony and then the court broke for lunch. I did not see the remainder of his testimony or his cross-examination because no additional video was posted here.

Not saying it did not happen -- just that I did not see it in the portion I reviewed.

MOO

 

[ACG2x]

Having watched much of the first few witnesses during the suppression hearing - specifically Steve Kivi and Trent Vileta, the defense is doing what they do. As Sharon said earlier, trying to lay the foundation of reasonable doubt. That said however, the physical and other evidence in this case is overwhelming. There are so many pieces of evidence the defense would have to get thrown out to cloud the waters enough to get the killer off here. He did it. And everyone knows it.

I truly believe his defense team's strategy is to get him convicted of something less than murder one so he could possibly see the light of day again. If they can muddy the waters enough about the confession, it's possible they can get the state to accept a plea deal of involuntary manslaughter which Iowa defines as "unintentionally causing the death of another by committing a public offense that is not a forcible felony or escape". The penalty for this is a minimum of five years vs. a life sentence for murder one.

I don't think his attorneys think they can outright win this case. The goal now for them is to get him less than the max sentence and getting small pieces of evidence clouded or thrown out further that goal. There is absolutely 0% chance he walks - like none. He will serve prison time for this, the only question is how much.

 

[SharonNeedles]

Having watched much of the first few witnesses during the suppression hearing - specifically Steve Kivi and Trent Vileta, the defense is doing what they do. As Sharon said earlier, trying to lay the foundation of reasonable doubt. That said however, the physical and other evidence in this case is overwhelming. There are so many pieces of evidence the defense would have to get thrown out to cloud the waters enough to get the killer off here. He did it. And everyone knows it.

I truly believe his defense team's strategy is to get him convicted of something less than murder one so he could possibly see the light of day again. If they can muddy the waters enough about the confession, it's possible they can get the state to accept a plea deal of involuntary manslaughter which Iowa defines as "unintentionally causing the death of another by committing a public offense that is not a forcible felony or escape". The penalty for this is a minimum of five years vs. a life sentence for murder one.

I don't think his attorneys think they can outright win this case. The goal now for them is to get him less than the max sentence and getting small pieces of evidence clouded or thrown out further that goal. There is absolutely 0% chance he walks - like none. He will serve prison time for this, the only question is how much.

Totally agree. But I think the best they can possibly hope for is Murder 2 with the maximum sentence of 50 years. That much, in my opinion, is a slam dunk.