Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #48

[Warwick7]

Honestly I don't think it looked so good with DJ saying he didn't recall so often....although I can understand some of the time because of the ambiguity of many of the questions.
A question of "Do you recall a conversation on July 18th.." well which conversation, when, about what?
Or do you recall a snapchat from 4 years ago...they prob did 100s of snapchats a day. That's like do you know what you had for breakfast Jan 10, 2018...well no.

Like the rest of us, DJ can make errors in remembering specific details.
As was said, they had hundreds of snap chats, text, private messaging---all of which can't be memorized.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I am going to use that line..."I must have 'blacked out'." When my husband asks me about my trip to the shoe store. Yeah, I have no clue...I drove there...and came home with 6 boxes of shoes. Something happened.

Sorry, not making light of this situation. But it is at a point of being absolutely ludicrous.

"And I came to and found this receipt in my lap."

 

[katydid23]

MAY 25, 2021
Mollie Tibbetts Murder: Defense Says Cristhian Bahena Rivera Falsely Confessed (lawandcrime.com)
[...]

The defense chose tactically to deliver the 10-minute-long opening statement after the state concluded its case in chief.

[...]

Frese and her co-counsel Chad Frese have long argued that the defendant was “interrogated” by the police after he’d worked a 12-hour shift on an area dairy farm. The 11-hour overnight interrogation, the defense has suggested, produced a coerced confession.

“He wasn’t in an interview; he was in an interrogation,” Frese said. “There’s no dispute on the facts that my client worked twelve hours at a dairy farm scooping poop, cleaning grounds, and then, at the end of his day, he was brought to the Poweshiek County Sheriff’s Office.”

The prosecutors and police officers have contended that Bahena Rivera was merely interviewed by police and that he was repeatedly told he was free to leave the police station before 11:30 p.m. the night he was interviewed.

The legal difference between a custodial interrogation and an interview where an individual is free to leave is critical to the analysis of whether the authorities must read a defendant his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), Thompson v. Keohane (1995), and Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004). The reading of those rights serves as a de facto notification that a suspect is being arrested and, more importantly, is facing increasing legal jeopardy, so the police seek to delay the point at which an interview becomes a custodial interrogation in order to keep a defendant talking without thinking he needs to remain silent or hire an attorney.

[...]

“And then they started to confront him with the evidence,” Frese continued. “They confronted him with this videotape. They confronted him with these pictures. And they said, ‘you know, we don’t believe you. We don’t believe that you weren’t there.’ And the confrontation continues until it was put in my client’s head — ‘perhaps you blacked out.’ ...

Law enforcement officers have testified Bahena Rivera told them he blacked out when he confronted Tibbetts while jogging. They say Bahena Rivera admitted confronting Tibbetts because he thought she was “hot.” According to the official account, Bahena Rivera said he blacked out what happened next, which he claimed would happen to him from time to time when he became angry. The next thing the defendant claimed to recall was that Tibbetts’ ear phones were in his car and her body was in his trunk, law enforcement officers testified.

The defense suggested it was law enforcement who fed Bahena Rivera at least part of the story.

[...]

Frese said alternate suspects were “ignored or not looked into” and said it was her “duty” to bring all such evidence to the jury.

She then reminded jurors that they all carried different life experiences into this case but were connected by one legally critical thread: “each one of you has the power to say no” to the state’s charges, she said.

[...]

So according to the defense, this was a 'false' confession because some of it was put in their client's head. And specifically, the part about him blacking out was false and put it his head by LE.

OK, so it is not true that he blacked out? Fine....then he should be able to fill in the blanks for us now.

 

[Seattle1]

Honestly I don't think it looked so good with DJ saying he didn't recall so often....although I can understand some of the time because of the ambiguity of many of the questions.
A question of "Do you recall a conversation on July 18th.." well which conversation, when, about what?
Or do you recall a snapchat from 4 years ago...they prob did 100s of snapchats a day. That's like do you know what you had for breakfast Jan 10, 2018...well no.

Better for DJ to say he did not recall than perjure himself with an incorrect answer-- which IMO seemed to be the goal of the defense. As long as DJ had no recollection, it was the defense that had to provide the content versus DJ provide the answer. On at least two occasions, I believe the defense was frustrated and let the question go. The inquiry about Uli Felix comes to mind -- they never got past that or what they were trying to get out of that inquiry. MOO

 

[katydid23]

"And I came to and found this receipt in my lap."

And I came to and found this receipt in my lap., and remembered I had 4 boxes of new shoes in the trunk.

 

[Seattle1]

So according to the defense, this was a 'false' confession because some of it was put in their client's head. And specifically, the part about him blacking out was false and put it his head by LE.

OK, so it is not true that he blacked out? Fine....then he should be able to fill in the blanks for us now.

Exactly! I certainly don't see CBR itching to get on the stand and provide his own testimony.

I also think it's an old argument that they tried during the suppression hearing (false confession) and it did not fly at that time either. MOO

 

[TL4S]

And I came to and found this receipt in my lap., and remembered I had 4 boxes of new shoes in the trunk.

But I was tired and the shoe salesman coerced me.

 

[usnuzuloose]

She would be alive today if he had not been brought over here.

If I were on a jury, this would pizz me off.

I want to hear what the jurys reaction is

 

[katydid23]

Better for DJ to say he did not recall than perjure himself with an incorrect answer-- which IMO seemed to be the goal of the defense. As long as DJ had no recollection, it was the defense that had to provide the content versus DJ provide the answer. On at least two occasions, I believe the defense was frustrated and let the question go. The inquiry about Uli Felix comes to mind -- they never got past that or what they were trying to get out of that inquiry. MOO

I totally agree. I think it was a good tactic by DJ, overall. I think it showed how petty and stupid the questions were, by making the attorney work so hard about revealing snapchat incidents, and high school promise rings, and having to say April 2017, and did Mollie want you to block her.....all of that was so silly.

And I believe that DJ really hurt the defense's momentum by making him slow way down and work so hard for every petty point he was trying to make.

" Do you remember when Mollie and Jordan spoke to each other on snapchat in April of 2017?" said in a serious Perry Mason tone....

Uh no, not really....

DJ made them drag the whole thing out and I think it showed how silly and irrelevant that whole line of questioning was.

 

[Megnut]

I was waiting for the powerhouse defense attorney to ask the next question of the expert.

'Would I be right to say we don't know how many women were in that trunk?'

The sad image of Mollie groping in the dark, searching perhaps for something with which to try to defend herself is a devastating think.

Sentencing can't come soon enough. LWOP+

JMO

 

[usnuzuloose]

I'd say DJ was treated as a hostile witness during both examination and cross-examination by the defense. IMO, the defense was on a mission since the day they learned his name.

Police publically cleared DJ and also Mollie's brothers after proving their alibis and comparing them to the facts of the investigation.

It was almost like watching the end of a Few Good Men

 

[katydid23]

Like the rest of us, DJ can make errors in remembering specific details.
As was said, they had hundreds of snap chats, text, private messaging---all of which can't be memorized.

By 'not remembering' he was telegraphing how menial and unimportant those texts were in the whole scheme of things.

 

[Seattle1]

I totally agree. I think it was a good tactic by DJ, overall. I think it showed how petty and stupid the questions were, by making the attorney work so hard about revealing snapchat incidents, and high school promise rings, and having to say April 2017, and did Mollie want you to block her.....all of that was so silly.

And I believe that DJ really hurt the defense's momentum by making him slow way down and work so hard for every petty point he was trying to make.

" Do you remember when Mollie and Jordan spoke to each other on snapchat in April of 2017?" said in a serious Perry Mason tone....

Uh no, not really....

DJ made them drag the whole thing out and I think it showed how silly and irrelevant that whole line of questioning was.

One word: sophomoric. ... And this is a murder trial!

 

[katydid23]

I was waiting for the powerhouse defense attorney to ask the next question of the expert.

'Would I be right to say we don't know how many women were in that trunk?'

The sad image of Mollie groping in the dark, searching perhaps for something with which to try to defend herself is a devastating think.

Sentencing can't come soon enough. LWOP+

JMO

I totally agree.

Speaking of the powerhouse defense attorney, he did manage to have his forensics expert confirm that it was Mollie's blood in the trunk and there was no cross contamination issues....

 

[skyedaze]

Better for DJ to say he did not recall than perjure himself with an incorrect answer-- which IMO seemed to be the goal of the defense. As long as DJ had no recollection, it was the defense that had to provide the content versus DJ provide the answer. On at least two occasions, I believe the defense was frustrated and let the question go. The inquiry about Uli Felix comes to mind -- they never got past that or what they were trying to get out of that inquiry. MOO

Ok yes I get that, thanks!

 

[katydid23]

I was waiting for the powerhouse defense attorney to ask the next question of the expert.

'Would I be right to say we don't know how many women were in that trunk?'

The sad image of Mollie groping in the dark, searching perhaps for something with which to try to defend herself is a devastating think.

Sentencing can't come soon enough. LWOP+

JMO

Are they going to drag in poor J. Love tomorrow and make her look like a deceitful friend? Are they going to make her read through all of her high school posts too?

I bet they ask her if DJ is violent.

 

[shotgun09]

I was so 'not' impressed with their failure of getting DJ to admit to remembering much of his high school daze, that the defense then jumped to attacking the construction crew/ supervisors and their drinking after work.. That was helpful...


Epic failure for the defense today

 

[skyedaze]

so who else is the defense going to call? Are they really going to call that Jordan girl and drag her/DJ in court? Is there a "black out " expert they are going to call?
Maybe DJ's boss..."Are you sure he was there cuz you were drunk right?"
The pig farmer?
Anybody in Iowa who was near a cornfield in July 2018?
Maybe a 14 year old snapchat expert?
What else do they have?

 

[JudgeJoe]

One of the things that really stuck out to me today is the fact that CB has zero problem with another person getting blamed for the vicious thing he did. He wouldn’t bat an eyelash if DJ, or anyone else, were falsely convicted for his actions. Add to that what CB’s crime has cost his uncle, his daughter, his parents, his extended family, his friends- literally & figuratively- he seems he couldn’t care less about any of it. And he sure doesn’t care about Mollie or her circle.

We hear about “entitlement” these days all the time. But this seems to be a whole different level & flavor of it. He felt entitled to Mollie, entitled to false documents, illegal employment, entitled to family money to fund these attorneys, entitled smear as many people as possible in the process. To me, that is the embodiment of rage & hate.

And his ex claiming DJ is a racist? That’s not going to bode well in rural Iowa. Her sympathy/support in this small community just got thinned way down. Imo. And what’s her real motivation? Resentment for the loss of $500 p/m child support? She should direct her anger where it belongs- on the murderous father of her kid. Imo

That was a lot to take in today. Sadly, I don’t think tomorrow will be much better. All moo.

 

[katydid23]

Who was the relative earlier who testified that she was friendly when CBR first moved to IA but later on they were not around him? Do we know anything about what happened there?
Sorry I can't remember....I must have blacked out..

I think that was his cousin, who bought his car for him, on her credit, and he paid it off.

ETA-correction, he never paid it off