Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 #31

[kkdj]

Brooklyn is not really “right off the interstate”. It’s a few miles up the road. People stop at the exit (TA Truck Stop) but don’t just wander north and stumble into Brooklyn.

Thank you!

 

[i'm someone]

As far as the website made by the LE, some of the dot pics are still not working after this long? That has to be on purpose then, because I am sure they've been flooded with "tips" that it's not working. Also, the site says "Check back for continued developments and advancements in this investigation."
but it doesn't look like anyone running it has even been there since it popped up. Has anyone here put in their email for "updates as new information has been received"? If so, has there been any mailed to you? What a weird little website, JMHO.

 

[NewYork625]

Regarding cases where LE doesn't have enough evidence to 'make charges stick' against someone, but they 'know who did it' or at least have a likely suspect, is there a lawyer here who can explain in a nutshell why LE doesn't just charge the person based on circumstantial evidence, and keep their fingers crossed that eventually (by the time they go to trial), they'll have more to go on?

Is it because of laws that protect citizens from being charged without 'compelling' evidence presented by LE to a judge who has to approve the charges in advance?

Are there any exceptions under these types of circumstances?

I'm trying to remember the details of the Drew Peterson case - I think he was brought in at one point by LE because of circumstantial evidence that was too significant to ignore (3 wives disappearing is more than a coincidence...), but maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, playing off of circumstantial evidence may be a stretch for Mollie's disappearance if LE only "likes" a person for abducting her or worse, but can't prove they had anything to do with it based on physical evidence.

But what if LE has someone who circumstantially they think could have done it?Would their only recourse be to wait and watch and hope they would slip up somehow?

Very frustrating if so.

Thanks in advance.

This is from a prosecutor in my family: You can't just proceed with a case until you have a case with solid evidence because double jeopardy attaches when someone is charged. To indict there is certain evidence that is required and the prosecution is required to lay out certain facts in an indictment which if untrue, could lead to the dismissal of the case. The job of a prosecutor is to do justice. Prosecutors should not be proceeding with prosecutions of cases just based on hunches or whims because the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high exacting standard. So, as a result, prosecutors need to be very careful and thorough in their investigations.
If additional evidence is found, that could either inculpate or exculpate a suspect/defendant, a prosecutor would also not want to proceed to trial immediately (e.g. a video surveillance of a location that may depict a crime, or DNA evidence).

 

[MesquiteO21]

He got one woman when she was working late and he saw her through her office window, right across from an all night chain restaurant, in the business section of town, on a well-traveled main street that police routinely patrol. No one saw or heard a thing.

that's terrifying and doesn't make me feel safe anywhere

 

[Jaclin]

Not very familiar with FitBit, but would she need to be wearing it for it to give out a digital signature? In other words, could it be possible the devices were still in a vehicle, sending out signals, but she was not?

I will say yes. The fitbit would continue to sync to the phone next to it even while not being worn. Obviously, there wouldn't be a heartrate unless the perp was wearing it. You can get some steps with wrist motion while driving. My fitbit thought I was on a stationary bike while I was driving, so I turned off that auto-recognized exercise. It can tell between walking and running, though. It thinks I'm walking when I rollerblade. It will measure some stats in the car, but it doesn't think I'm walking or running in the car. If she had it on "mobile run", it could track riding on the interstate. As auto-recognized sport, it probably would stop her run, but under the manually started run function it would probably continue to track the distance as a run even if she wasn't wearing the device until the function is turned off, the phone disabled, the phone out of signal, or the fitbit runs out of juice. Only once has my fitbit run out of juice because it got low and I forgot to charge it, and I've been wearing one every day for a year.

 

[Ezekiel2517]

I think that the pinned tweet is very odd and suspicious for a couple reasons and I'm starting to think it was a ruse by the cop or the perp posing as a cop to get her name and information.
MT says the cop told her someone called in and reported her as a missing child.
- Was there in fact a missing child with a pink coat? If so, how did this 3rd party who called her in hear about it? And why wouldn't they themselves approach her and ask if shes OK? Was there an Amber Alert? Or, did someone see her and just assumed she was a lost child? But I can't think of a legit reason why someone would assume a child getting off a bus and going into a library would mean she's a missing child. MOO

 

[MesquiteO21]

I doubt LE would even have held a PC last week if they had a suspect and were just waiting on him to “make a move” or even on forensics, though on what I can’t imagine. They would have had no reason to share the bit they did, imo. Wihtout giving a vehicle or perp description, it is useless for them to give out areas on a map. It was obvious to me that they want anything that could help them find someone to suspect...not hoping that someone would happen to give them the exact info they need without knowing what it is. They also would not have listed all of the behavior/appearance issues to think back on. But jmo.

my thoughts exactly. i know some people believe they put out the request to attempt to gather more information on someone they suspect (or more than one person) and i don't think it's wrong to think that per se, but just my personal feeling is that unfortunately they do not have any specific persons of interest.

 

[MsBetsy]

This is very plausible. It made me think back to an oddball guy at school that gave me the heebie-jeebies. He used to pop up in random places to the point of stalking. My pit bull boyfriend scared him off, but it was very creepy. I can see this scenario you portray very easily.

I think that the pinned tweet is very odd and suspicious for a couple reasons and I'm starting to think it was a ruse by the cop or the perp posing as a cop to get her name and information.
MT says the cop told her someone called in and reported her as a missing child.
- Was there in fact a missing child with a pink coat? If so, how did this 3rd party who called her in hear about it? And why wouldn't they themselves approach her and ask if shes OK? Was there an Amber Alert? Or, did someone see her and just assumed she was a lost child? But I can't think of a legit reason why someone would assume a child getting off a bus and going into a library would mean she's a missing child. MOO

That whole story has pretty much been dismissed as having nothing to do with this case, see the last thread if you are interested. I think you will find all the info you need.

 

[Jaclin]

Deadhead. You drop the trailer.

If you just came in from a run on Wednesday, you wouldn't be dragging the trailer, you'd only have the cab.

Bobtail, but to go along with that, a lot of guys leave the tractor trailer at the truck stop and drive off with their cars. At least, I've seen them do that at the Road Ranger Pilot next to where I work. Then, there's also PUPs, but I think trailers in general would call out more attention than a car or pickup truck.

 

[Flowercb]

A great article showing who Mollie really is.
She's nurturing. She's a Harry Potter fan. We all know Mollie Tibbetts' face, but her friends and family say she's so much more.

 

[MsBetsy]

This is very plausible. It made me think back to an oddball guy at school that gave me the heebie-jeebies. He used to pop up in random places to the point of stalking. My pit bull boyfriend scared him off, but it was very creepy. I can see this scenario you portray very easily.

What I find odd is dating a pitbull. THAT scenario gives me the heebi- jeebies.

 

[str8nightowl]

And maybe that vehicle was caught on camera at the truck stop, either before or after being captured in town.

Tl4S, maybe LE got a video of MT running near the car wash. Maybe MT was on the cameras at the front of the car wash running somewhere in the vicinity. Maybe they saw her go around the corner or something (from what I have heard there are no cameras at the back of the car wash). Maybe as soon as they saw MT run around the corner of the car wash they saw a vehicle go around the corner in the exact same direction she was running. Maybe then they looked at the cameras and never saw MT or that car come back on the cameras. Then maybe they saw that SAME vehicle on the cameras at the truck stop later on that day (it may not even be that that vehicle pulled into the truck stop--maybe they saw that vehicle pass by on the road in front of the truck stop).

But then if they THOUGHT this was the person that abducted MT I would THINK they would have pictures or videos everywhere alerting the public to look at the vehicle to let them know if they could identify the vehicle and who owns it. But maybe since LE never was able to see whomever was driving that vehicle actually abduct MT in the act they could not post a picture or video (I'm not sure how all that works). Does LE have to be positive that it is the perp's vehicle before posting a video or picture on the news to try to find out who's vehicle it might be and who might own it? I would think they could post the picture or video so that they would be able to find if someone could give them more information on the vehicle.

I would think if this vehicle turned the corner at the car wash behind MT then LE would have a pretty good picture of this vehicle. Unless somehow the cameras at the car wash didn't get a good picture. And if this person never pulled into the truck stop and LE only got this vehicle passing by they may not have gotten a good enough picture to show the public. Or by that time it may have been late at night and they may have not gotten a good enough picture due to it being at night or because it was raining. JMO.

 

[Jaclin]

Personally, I would be much more guarded by being approached by a trucker in a semi, while jogging, than say a normal car at my eye level. MOO

If I'm on a lonely country road and a semi is behind me, I'm running full speed into the corn in a zig zag pattern! I'm going to be leary of a car, too. In my apartment complex, I'm constantly alerted whenever a car slows down next to me when I'm walking. I always forget that there is a stop sign in one spot, and every time I freak out for a second.

 

[CuriousCricket]

I was wondering because the thought crossed my mind that she may have already been left somewhere before the out-of-town "pings" were made, but the devices were still the vehicle as it was leaving town.

I have thought if this was an acquaintance get-together that went suddenly wrong, Mollie might be out of the car and the "friend" driving, trying to think, trying to calm down when he realized the phone and fitbit were still in the vehicle, so he disposed of them. If this is a first timer, I seriously doubt he would be thinking clearly enough to try to plant the digital devices near WC, but he just happened to be near WC's property when he realized he needed to deal with them. If, however, this was a polished, repeat abductor, who knows how much thought and research had gone into the situation?

 

[SteveP]

Shout out to the guests viewing this thread! Won't you consider joining us and adding your thoughts on this difficult case? New eyes and new perspectives are always welcome! Yours may be just what we need!

 

[cujenn81]

We don't know what happened or how it happened, and the only way we'll ever know is if Mollie lives to tell the tale or her murderer confesses, because if LE had anything, this case wouldn't be cold. Not to be a Debbie downer, but a realistic Rhonda.

My theory is someone who grew up in eastern Iowa did this and has done this before. He jumped off the freeway at the truck stop, headed north into town looking for an opportunity, made a couple laps around the block, spotted Mollie, grabbed her in a split second (east of the carwash) drove to that top right red dot then south to that other red dot and on past, did his evil business, and left the poor girl in a body of water or abandoned shelter.

He's crazy. He wasn't thinking about it's daylight or somebody could see me... no, he looked around real quick to see if anybody was watching when he thought it was a good spot to snatch her, stopped quickly, put the vehicle in park, hopped out, grabbed her, probably threw her in the trunk and sped off.

I think people should search for her way south of that bottom right red dot.

I'm probably totally wrong about all of this, hell I usually watch romantic comedies, not crime shows, so what do I know?! Everyone needs to say a prayer for her heartbroken parents.

Unfortunately, this has been my leading theory from the very beginning.

 

[i'm someone]

I think that the pinned tweet is very odd and suspicious for a couple reasons and I'm starting to think it was a ruse by the cop or the perp posing as a cop to get her name and information.
MT says the cop told her someone called in and reported her as a missing child.
- Was there in fact a missing child with a pink coat? If so, how did this 3rd party who called her in hear about it? And why wouldn't they themselves approach her and ask if shes OK? Was there an Amber Alert? Or, did someone see her and just assumed she was a lost child? But I can't think of a legit reason why someone would assume a child getting off a bus and going into a library would mean she's a missing child. MOO

Well, I found one 11 year old in the database. Is still listed as missing.

 

[MsBetsy]

Tl4S, maybe LE got a video of MT running near the car wash. Maybe MT was on the cameras at the front of the car wash running somewhere in the vicinity. Maybe they saw her go around the corner or something (from what I have heard there are no cameras at the back of the car wash). Maybe as soon as they saw MT run around the corner of the car wash they saw a vehicle go around the corner in the exact same direction she was running. Maybe then they looked at the cameras and never saw MT or that car come back on the cameras. Then maybe they saw that SAME vehicle on the cameras at the truck stop later on that day (it may not even be that that vehicle pulled into the truck stop--maybe they saw that vehicle pass by on the road in front of the truck stop).

But then if they THOUGHT this was the person that abducted MT I would THINK they would have pictures or videos everywhere alerting the public to look at the vehicle to let them know if they could identify the vehicle and who owns it. But maybe since LE never was able to see whomever was driving that vehicle actually abduct MT in the act they could not post a picture or video (I'm not sure how all that works). Does LE have to be positive that it is the perp's vehicle before posting a video or picture on the news to try to find out who's vehicle it might be and who might own it? I would think they could post the picture or video so that they would be able to find if someone could give them more information on the vehicle.

I would think if this vehicle turned the corner at the car wash behind MT then LE would have a pretty good picture of this vehicle. Unless somehow the cameras at the car wash didn't get a good picture. And if this person never pulled into the truck stop and LE only got this vehicle passing by they may not have gotten a good enough picture to show the public. Or by that time it may have been late at night and they may have not gotten a good enough picture due to it being at night or because it was raining. JMO.

I doubt they would reveal the picture of a vehicle unless they were pretty sure that was the car in question, and even then I'm not so sure. What would be great is if they had an image or partial image of the plates. It would be hard to go by just the vehicle and image of a suspicious driver, as it could be anybody. Unless what they saw was enough to ensure them this was the guy. But look at the case in Indiana. They have an actual image of the perp and they still can't find him.

 

[otto]

I asked this in another thread. don't know which one or if it was answered. Was it ever mentioned if she carried a water bottle -refillable or commercial brand -on her run? one she would stop and refill. If so, where? or one she or someone might toss in trash or along a road? would she ever stop to buy a bottle of water? To me, it would seem odd not to take water on a run/walk on a hot day. I would and do.

I wonder if anyone has walked her jogging route and scoured the sides of the streets for anything from a water bottle to an ear bud.

 

[otto]

I can't find the quote, but regarding tranquilizer and farm animals - we have a horse farm and plenty of tranquilizer. Now I find it totally unplausible that someone could inject a fighting back woman, but access to tranquilizer would not be hard.

Jessica's Heeringa's abductor carried insulin injections in his vehicle and used them on his victims.