IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #40

[CarnegieHall]

Maybe not if the other guy was the violent one and CR was the one who liked to watch/look. Everybody keeps saying that you can't believe anything he says, so why believe that he's the one who approached her or anything else? Would being afraid of getting locked up with the other guy be enough to keep him from mentioning him? I don't believe this is true either, still trying to show ways they could show reasonable doubt. Not that it would matter much in this scenario, I believe he'd be considered just as guilty if he was driving and assisted in any way. MOO

I would think that to introduce reasonable doubt of another perpetrator there would have to be some DNA evidence, no? Jmo

 

[CuriousCricket]

I’m not sure what you mean. CR has been charged under section 707.2.1.a of Iowa criminal code, that’s why he’s being held.

Wouldn’t it seem logical that he’s arrested and charged with the crime it’s alleged he committed?

http://www.dps.state.ia.us/commis/p...-2018_DCI_ArrestWarrantComplaintAffidavit.pdf

Section 707.2.1.a
707.2 Murder in the first degree.
1. A person commits murder in the first degree when the person commits murder under any of the following circumstances:
a. The person willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation kills another person.
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/707.2.pdf

I'm not sure where the confusion is.

you posted: "Do you know why additional qualifying charges weren’t indicated at the onset?"

My reply was that the murder in the first degree charge was all LE needed to be able to hold him. On that day, at that time, there was no need for more than the one charge.

Now you're posting about that charge. We are apparently both missing what the other is trying to say.

 

[otto]

<snip>

Have you even read about this case? Innocent until proven guilty is really hard to prove once you’ve lead police to a body, a body that was searched for for around 5 weeks. The exact location, how she was positioned on the ground and what was laying on top of her.

But hey, if I go off and block out that I murdered someone and only remember where I desposed of there body, I’d sure like you in my jury to acquit me!

The suspect is innocent until proven guilty. That indisputable. It's a given.

He has admitted to accosting Mollie on the street, that she was in the trunk of his car, and that he put her body in a cornfield. His memory between accosting her and putting her in the cornfield is blocked.

The prosecution has to prove that he intended to murder her, that he did murder her, and that there is no reasonable explanation for his memory lapse.

 

[MistyWaters]

For ease of looking up....


707.2 Murder in the first degree.

1. A person commits murder in the first degree when the person commits murder under any of the following circumstances:

a. The person willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation kills another person.


https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/707.2.pdf

Thank you.

A preliminary autopsy could’ve estimated the quantity of “multiple” sharp force injuries. If it was many, that act in itself falls within the realm of “willfully, deliberately and with premeditation” (as opposed to one or two), sometimes referred to as overkill. CR also admitted he got mad and when he got very upset, he blocked his memory. That to me indicates multiple means many, many sharp force injuries, what occurs during a blind rage and that’s just my opinion.

As he hasn’t yet entered a plea, CR may have a better chance in attempting a plea deal than taking this case to trial and pleading not guilty, considering his self-incriminating confession. Time will tell.

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm not sure where the confusion is.

you posted: "Do you know why additional qualifying charges weren’t indicated at the onset?"

My reply was that the murder in the first degree charge was all LE needed to be able to hold him. On that day, at that time, there was no need for more than the one charge.

Now you're posting about that charge. We are apparently both missing what the other is trying to say.

The earlier discussion pertained to CR allegedly committing 1st degree murder during the course of committing a forcible felony, which includes such things as abduction, rape or robbery. If there was evidence of that, I was curious why CR wouldn’t have been charged under section 707.2.1.b of Iowa Criminal code (as opposed to 707.2.1.a).

 

[whiskers]

Morbid question, but has Mollie actually been laid to rest? Meaning, buried. I know a memorial service took place and read her brothers were going to be pallbearers. But there wasn't a casket. Unless it was at another service.

 

[MistyWaters]

This is 707.2.1.b, the section of Iowa criminal code that is not what CR faces charges for.

BBM

707.2 Murder in the first degree.
1. A person commits murder in the first degree when the person commits murder under any of the following circumstances:
b. The person kills another person while participating in a forcible felony.

 

[ACG2x]

Morbid question, but has Mollie actually been laid to rest? Meaning, buried. I know a memorial service took place and read her brothers were going to be pallbearers. But there wasn't a casket. Unless it was at another service.

No public report of that yet but typically for a high profile case with lots of interest, the family will have a public memorial for everyone and then a private burial for close family/friends only which is closed off to the media.

 

[kpm]

The earlier discussion pertained to CR allegedly committing 1st degree murder during the course of committing a forcible felony, which includes such things as abduction, rape or robbery. If there was evidence of that, I was curious why CR wouldn’t have been charged under section 707.2.1.b of Iowa Criminal code (as opposed to 707.2.1.a).

Good question!

 

[Jealoushe]

Wow, I almost missed this, as I was about to go to bed! So freaky! Even the fluorescent purple with black background. I think this sounds very much like the " anger retaliation killer." Although it did say the victim is usually turned on side or back, it also said, if left on her back, he will cover her eyes, which we know he did with the cornstalks. The most interesting detail that jumped out at me was the fact that " The anger retaliation killer NEEDS A SPECIFIC EVENT WITH EACH VICTIM AS A SPUR TO THE ATTACK EVEN IF HE HAS SET IT UP CONSCIOUSLY. I would have put that in bold but I dont know how. Anyway, pretty close to what occurred, if at all true, that the fact that the victim threatened to call police is what angered him and sent him into a violent rage. Also interesting how it describes a knife or sharp object as a sexual tool and the carelessness about cleaning up afterwards. If this is true about Rivera, there must be plenty of evidence for LE to find. JMO

Except the link provided says thee killers leave their victims face down. Kind of negates the point trying to be proved here.

 

[The Farm]

BUF thanks so much, no matter what I put in search this certainly did not come up...….so even 5-6 weeks out there is a chance.

 

[TL4S]

Per affidavit: "The Defendant was able to use his phone to determine the route he traveled from Brooklyn. Rivera then later guided law enforcement to her location from memory."

Key words, "...route he traveled from Brooklyn." If he had "blocked" his "memory," then how could he determine the route he took from Brooklyn? IMO, there are only two reasonable explanations: 1) He hadn't "blocked" out the drive from his memory, therefore is caught in a lie, or 2) he used his phone on 7/18 to determine a location to dump her from the area he abducted her near Brooklyn, and it was still on his phone 5 weeks later for him to reference.

 

[Al Hoffman]

Sexual Assault and Semen Persistence

WOW BUF, great post, and fantastic citation!

I knew that the literature on long post-mortum semen collection would be scanty, but a great synopsis couple of paragraphs! I am pleased to see that the literature supports viable forensic findings as far out as 36 days to 5-6 weeks. This would lend credence to any such findings in MT's case at 33 days, and shows that such collection is possible. Of note is that the far outlayer of 5-6 weeks was from a mummified corpse. DNA (and spermatoozoa) will best preserve in a cool and dry bacteria free environment. Unfortunately, CBR hit the jackpot, foriensicly speaking, when he placed MT's body in the shade of the relatively humid corn rows and covering leaves on soil with a rich insect and soil biota in a hot Iowa summer.

Perp DNA findings on autopsy will depend on just how prolonged and active bacterial putrafication was, and how much of the body remained intact. While we know that the collection and findings of such scant DNA are possible, because of the time and circumstances of decomp associated with MT, I think that the chances of finding anything of evidentiary value regarding CBR are less than 50/50, if at all possible. However, the best labs and people available are working on this, and if at all possible, they will find whatever there is left to find.

 

[kpm]

Per affidavit: "The Defendant was able to use his phone to determine the route he traveled from Brooklyn. Rivera then later guided law enforcement to her location from memory."

Key words, "...route he traveled from Brooklyn." If he had "blocked" his "memory," then how could he determine the route he took from Brooklyn? IMO, there are only two reasonable explanations: 1) He hadn't "blocked" out the drive from his memory, therefore is caught in a lie, or 2) he used his phone on 7/18 to determine a location to dump her from the area he abducted her near Brooklyn, and it was still on his phone 5 weeks later for him to reference.

Imagine if he had a pin drop where he placed her.....

What was he thinking when they were searching the fields close to where he left her?

After they came up with nothing I imagine he felt he got away with it and the poor pig farmer would take the rap.

If her phone pinged there CR must not have disabled her phone at the site of abduction right?

 

[Al Hoffman]

I would think that to introduce reasonable doubt of another perpetrator there would have to be some DNA evidence, no? Jmo

Some verifiable evidence you would think.

 

[Al Hoffman]

This is 707.2.1.b, the section of Iowa criminal code that is not what CR faces charges for.

BBM

707.2 Murder in the first degree.
1. A person commits murder in the first degree when the person commits murder under any of the following circumstances:
b. The person kills another person while participating in a forcible felony.

Yeah, not at THIS point in time, but give the State prosecutor time to gather further evidence, and refine his trial strategy and more charges may well be added to support the Murder One charge. Only time, not WS, will tell!

I have had to testify in open court and participate in dispositions a number of times. Always, the attorney on my side would caution me to ONLY directly answer the given question and to NEVER ramble on with extraneous or additional information. It can only give the opposition an opportunity to entrap you. In the case of the initial warrant for CR's arrest, only a solid, single verifiable charge was necessary at that time. Murder One was a strong hand to open with. As time goes on, and as the evidentiary cards are assembled, stacked and delt it will be interesting to see what further hands the State prosecutor(s) will play. What further charges will emerge and be filed.

A trial is a lot like a poker game, in that you don't show your cards till the time is right. Been there, done that and had to keep from laughing (while in the witness box) as the opposing attorney put his head down on folded arms in an obvious sign of capulation, because of my ongoing testimony as I pulled yet another prop out of my jacket to support my narrative. I was later told by counsel that they were waiting for me to pull out a rabbit! The result was that opposing counsel called a recess, went in the back and offered my client another 10k, they came back in, the jury was dismissed, and everyone called it a job well done.

 

[kpm]

Per affidavit: "The Defendant was able to use his phone to determine the route he traveled from Brooklyn. Rivera then later guided law enforcement to her location from memory."

Key words, "...route he traveled from Brooklyn." If he had "blocked" his "memory," then how could he determine the route he took from Brooklyn? IMO, there are only two reasonable explanations: 1) He hadn't "blocked" out the drive from his memory, therefore is caught in a lie, or 2) he used his phone on 7/18 to determine a location to dump her from the area he abducted her near Brooklyn, and it was still on his phone 5 weeks later for him to reference.

Another thought, why was he mapping himself in the first place?

He lived and worked near there and made frequent visits to town for food and whatnot

I think he mapped out the spot he planned to carry out his dirty deed ahead of time, he picked a spot beforehand he thought was secluded enough, can’t wait for the details to come out!

He may have even had her route mapped out so it would be easier to find her that day.

 

[whiskers]

No public report of that yet but typically for a high profile case with lots of interest, the family will have a public memorial for everyone and then a private burial for close family/friends only which is closed off to the media.

That's what I was thinking. But I wasn't sure and also if the private burial had taken place. Do we think the medical examiner would need to keep the remains longer than a few days?

 

[tigertales]

Thinking of the possible sexual assault I have been trying to find out how long sperm can be detected on a decomposing body but can not find an answer to that. When I enter it in search the answer never comes up.
Does anyone know?

Some info here but not sure there is the exact detail about this and decomposition. Posted for reference only.

DNA Forensic Testing and Use of DNA Rape Kits in Cases of Rape and Sexual Assault

 

[TL4S]

Imagine if he had a pin drop where he placed her.....

What was he thinking when they were searching the fields close to where he left her?

After they came up with nothing I imagine he felt he got away with it and the poor pig farmer would take the rap.

If her phone pinged there CR must not have disabled her phone at the site of abduction right?

My thought is her phone was either in the car because he grabbed it and tossed it in there, or in the trunk because it fell off her there. Either he didn't think about the phone tracking, or didn't realize the phone was even in the vehicle, so it could have been pinging all the way back to his home from the cornfield (but not pinging AT his house, obviously). I think if he disabled it at all, it was after the fact, not before. MOO