Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 #8

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I relistened, and I now hear “ not a no” as well
usernameidk said:
I thought he said, “so that’s a no”? And I believe the facial expression made when that was said was due to the fact that he knows it’s true, (but doesn’t want the public to know it’s true)
That they have no evidence, theories, they have nothing. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know, I am just saying that’s how his body language looked when that was said. He didn’t look too happy to have it put like that from the reporter.
Thou who protests and all that, and that facial was a protest.
Click to expand...
Mommy2samjake said:
Interesting facial expression after reporter asked about POI, and then followed up with, "That's not a 'no."
Click to expand...
 
I found this Press Conference to be quite telling , actually. Please note, this is strictly my take away, and all based on MOO. :

1. They do have a suspect. They don't just don't know WHY the suspect acted in this manner. The motive is not clear.

2. They don't know where to find Mollie. Not yet.

3. They know when she went missing (at least within a good time frame).

4. They don't believe she purposely left home with no intention of contacting family, friends and/or co workers.

5. I am leaning towards the fact that Mollie knew, or was familiar with her abductor.

Reasons I believe the above is true:

1. This press conference has dual purposes. One is to keep Mollie's story alive. They need people to stay focused, keep asking questions, and NOT let the public forget that she is gone. Another reason: To keep pressure on the Perpetrator. They need this person to understand that they are NOT stopping. They have leads, they are following them. In order to find Mollie, they need to uncover the"why".

2. This is delicate. They have to follow their POI in both physical and digital ways. They have to befriend this person and gain their trust. They have to get to understand the dynamic between Mollie and their POI.

3. I believe them when they say that they have an accurate timeline. They know when she went missing within (A guess for certain) an hour - 2 hours. They cannot share this, because it will give the POI time to run, change stories, or obstruct / damage evidence.

4. Even though subtle, the point was made that disappearing is out of the line of normal for past behaviors.

5. The hesitation in the answer to whether people should be heightened on vigilance is telling. There was a leaning towards the fact that they want to know who was in this small town. Who frequents it.. and also how out of character this disappearance is. And, yes.. I do realize that the conclusion would be it is uncharacteristic.. however, in my interpretation of his message.. this feels more personal.

Please know .. once again.. these are my thoughts and take away. I look forward to the next press conference. I would wager a bet that this will see a conclusion within weeks if not sooner.

Bless Mollie's family and the little town that is trying to figure this out.
 
Dushi said:
I have heard LE avoid the question about public safety in many cases I have followed.
The pat answer.. everyone should always be aware of their surroundings.
That doesn't set off any particular alarms for me.

There is something extremely unusual about this case. I can't quite put it into words, just something very off

JMHO
Click to expand...

You can say that again~ this case is very, very off.

I need to watch again and read through others comments here to see if anything clicks for me.
JMO
 
Initial reports were always that she went missing wed night. Ames Iowa news also said she went missing Wed. Night after 10pm. They deleted that post but many of us have the ss.
As the days went on they decided it was best to be vague instead of being clear about the timeline.

Melanie1126 said:
LE only referenced "events on July 18th" as opposed to July 18th and 19th. Maybe not important but leads me to believe they think something happened to her that evening or night instead of the next morning as has been discussed (mostly due to missing red shirt).
I had previously thought that she did make it back from her run but now I don't know what to think. If she'd been out for a run, the dogs would have been up. I never take my wallet or money or ID when I run. I have been known to hide my keys in my unlocked car or around the outside of the house in order to keep from running with them. I also never run with my glasses so I guess it really depends on how bad her vision is. So to me, the setup that they found, wallet home, glasses home, contacts home, dogs put up, sounds like she never made it home. Until they confirm the SC time or the school log in I see nothing that leads me to believe she made it back.
Click to expand...
 
cluciano63 said:
If she did seem to just take off...it would be troublesome due to what LE has learned about her, is what I understand, therefore she needs to be located to ensure that she is safe. They def did not rule out her leaving. And def have not indicated abduction.
Click to expand...

Do we know if her family was affluent? Was middle class? Struggled financially?

I ask because she was to go to the DR for the wedding and no doubt her trip had been paid for at the time she went missing. I believe in a parental interview it was stated that she had just obtained her first passport for this trip. A young college girl from a landlocked state about to make her first trip to a Caribbean island - a trip that might've been more costly than her typical vacation - is not one most girls would be likely to just skip out on.

And the fact that she had been coordinating with her mother about getting ingredients for a dessert she was to take to work on Friday (I believe)...

And she was partway through an online class...

Things like that make me think it's highly unlikely she would've left voluntarily at this time. I'd think she'd just not mention the need for a dessert if she knew she wasn't going to be around to make it, and would wait until after the trip and the class to leave. Within a couple of weeks or so, both of those thing would be behind her.
 
It is highly unlikely that anyone spotted taking photographs is involved in this case. This type of voyeur behavior can be a precursor to more deviant acts (in extreme cases kidnapping, rape, and murder), but more often than not, does not escalate to that extreme. You don't generally go from taking voyeuristic photos to kidnapping and then go back to taking photos. This is especially true following a potential crime like this. Your adrenaline is flowing, you are in fear of getting caught, and reverting back wouldn't give you the same kick. Its far more likely that this person or persons taking photos, has been doing this for a while, and is just now being exposed thanks to increased public vigilance.
 
I'm sorry to say that I got nothing from the press conference apart for the look of worry on their faces. its just terrible that's there's still nothing to tell. I think they do have an idea what happened and it definitely seems like an abduction to me. I think they know someone has/had Mollie and they are trying their best to find out who and where.
 
Ravenmoon said:
I found this Press Conference to be quite telling , actually. Please note, this is strictly my take away, and all based on MOO. :

1. They do have a suspect. They don't just don't know WHY the suspect acted in this manner. The motive is not clear.

2. They don't know where to find Mollie. Not yet.

3. They know when she went missing (at least within a good time frame).

4. They don't believe she purposely left home with no intention of contacting family, friends and/or co workers.

5. I am leaning towards the fact that Mollie knew, or was familiar with her abductor.

Reasons I believe the above is true:

1. This press conference has dual purposes. One is to keep Mollie's story alive. They need people to stay focused, keep asking questions, and NOT let the public forget that she is gone. Another reason: To keep pressure on the Perpetrator. They need this person to understand that they are NOT stopping. They have leads, they are following them. In order to find Mollie, they need to uncover the"why".

2. This is delicate. They have to follow their POI in both physical and digital ways. They have to befriend this person and gain their trust. They have to get to understand the dynamic between Mollie and their POI.

3. I believe them when they say that they have an accurate timeline. They know when she went missing within (A guess for certain) an hour - 2 hours. They cannot share this, because it will give the POI time to run, change stories, or obstruct / damage evidence.

4. Even though subtle, the point was made that disappearing is out of the line of normal for past behaviors.

5. The hesitation in the answer to whether people should be heightened on vigilance is telling. There was a leaning towards the fact that they want to know who was in this small town. Who frequents it.. and also how out of character this disappearance is. And, yes.. I do realize that the conclusion would be it is uncharacteristic.. however, in my interpretation of his message.. this feels more personal.

Please know .. once again.. these are my thoughts and take away. I look forward to the next press conference. I would wager a bet that this will see a conclusion within weeks if not sooner.

Bless Mollie's family and the little town that is trying to figure this out.
Click to expand...

Great second post, Ravenmoon!
 
What stands out to me is the comment "We need to get to know Mollie."

At first glance (and even second glance, third glance), Mollie seems easy to know. She's like the all-American girl next door. College student, steady boyfriend, works with kids, close to family, attractive, connected with friends. She seems to fit into a type we all are familiar with.

So...what's to "get to know" after trained investigators already have been on the case for several days?

Is Mollie more complex than we thought? Have we made too many assumptions about her? Is her life more complicated than a college student on summer break working with children in her hometown?

???

Just random thoughts as I process today's presser.

I'm also left with the thought, that I've had throughout the case, about how many people are concerned for Mollie and want to find her safe. People care.

jmo
 
DoABarrelRoll said:
I'm a bit confused, can someone help clear this up for me, please?:

Are there 2, separate, incidents of men seen photographing? One in Dubuques, where a man was caught on CCTV allegedly photographing two teenage joggers from inside his car. And a second, separate incident when a man, possibly in his 30s, photographing areas where MT was known to jog?

I apologize if I misstated any of that information. Is anyone able to set me straight, please and thank you!
Click to expand...
Lol I've been reading about them continuously and still got them mixed up.

In Dubuque, IA, there was a report of a man harassing/ attacking a jogger. Source: Dubuque Police Department

In Pella, IA, there was an incident with a man taking photos of HS girls jogging from his car. Source: Police 'continue to pursue' man taking photos of girls in Pella

Neither of those are confirmed to be related to Mollie in any way.

Then there was the talking head on HLN who apparently made a statement that may have confused the guy with Pella with Mollie's case or implied he was in Brooklyn, IA, where she disappeared from.
 
CJohnson9410 said:
First post -

this is reminding me a little bit of Leanne Bearden and the mom that disappeared from her home (cant remember her name right now)

my take on the PC -
they know what happened, they dont know why

in my observations, they do not say a lot when there is a lot going on behind the scene or are close to conclusion

all is my opinion, but my gut is saying she willingly left and may not be found, and if so, not for a few months
Click to expand...
I'm half that way, half the other way. Depends on what she left with and if her phone was on for a while
 
Inthedetails said:
When reporters cover the press conferences (even if it's non-news to WSers following the case so closely), it keeps Mollie in the news. The case needs that! We want coverage.

jmo
Click to expand...

I don't want coverage like that. I'm certainly not going to watch their next press conference.
 
MassGuy said:
It is highly unlikely that anyone spotted taking photographs is involved in this case. This type of voyeur behavior can be a precursor to more deviant acts (in extreme cases kidnapping, rape, and murder), but more often than not, does not escalate to that extreme. You don't generally go from taking voyeuristic photos to kidnapping and then go back to taking photos. This is especially true following a potential crime like this. Your adrenaline is flowing, you are in fear of getting caught, and reverting back wouldn't give you the same kick. Its far more likely that this person or persons taking photos, has been doing this for a while, and is just now being exposed thanks to increased public vigilance.
Click to expand...

I agree. I also think it could have been something like maybe he lives nearby and thought he saw them do something like damage property at his house and he was trying to take their photos to be able to identify them. I mean yeah, far fetched, but it's possible I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 82 more.
Total: 3,809 (members: 83, guests: 3,726)

Online statistics

Members online
83
Guests online
3,726
Total visitors
3,809
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,288
Messages
17,966,724
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top