Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #46

[rebel123]

O/T - a must read - US inmate's golf drawings lead to freedom

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Unless you've know what all the forensics / reports etc, will say I'm not sure you can say that; It could create doubt.

True but I can have a opinion based on what we know now which is already damaging to the defendant.

But you are also correct much will be learned as the ongoing investigation proceeds. The investigation is only in its beginning stage at the time of arrest. I do believe once the investigation is completed the evidence will be overwhelming when presented at trial and yes that is only my opinion.

Imo

 

[rebel123]

True but I can have a opinion based on what we know now which is already damaging to the defendant.

But you are also correct much will be learned as the ongoing investigation proceeds. The investigation is only in its beginning stage at the time of arrest. I do believe once the investigation is completed the evidence will be overwhelming when presented at trial and yes that is only my opinion.

Imo

What % of the information known to LE do you think we have? For example do we have 75%?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Thanks OBE. I have been quiet as of late on this thread. Reading tho. Good to see you. As always.

OT

I was off the grid myself for many months. First time that has happened since I became member in January 2004.

My hubby finally retired after 51 years of service. So I spent all of those months enjoying him being home. with me everyday.

But he is not an idle man and has opened his own business now and is back to being as busy as ever. Lol

 

[MistyWaters]

What % of the information known to LE do you think we have? For example do we have 75%?

LE stated they had developed a timeline prior to CRs arrest and then subsequently, his involvement confirmed that same timeline. What that means, we can only guess but we have inklings Fitbit and/or cellphones played a role.

Other than what CR stated during his interview, summarized in the affidavit that adequately supported an arrest and the cause of death, LE has revealed nothing about the evidence they’ve compiled. But the vehicle used to abduct Mollie became known, the exact site of the attack, the route, the body and location all have become forensic examination opportunities.

 

[Bravo]

OT

I was off the grid myself for many months. First time that has happened since I became member in January 2004.

My hubby finally retired after 51 years of service. So I spent all of those months enjoying him being home. with me everyday.

But he is not an idle man and has opened his own business now and is back to being as busy as ever. Lol

I hear ya. Hubby did same. I am semi retired. Cant seem to give it up entirely. I just don't have much to add to this case since it's gone quiet. I'm just glad Mollie was found and an arrest made. Sooo hard to believe this lovely gal with such a promising future is gone.

 

[The Farm]

I think this trial might be the exact opposite of a slam dunk. So many opportunities for “reasonable doubt.”

Slam dunk for me but of course will wait to see what evidence the defense digs up beside the fact that he has a lesser education and supposedly he can't speak english which is BS. Oh and the make believe blackout/blocked BS. As you can see I believe none of that. The defense would not want me for a juror.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

What % of the information known to LE do you think we have? For example do we have 75%?

The bare bone facts like we normally do in other cases similar to this one.

But it is not what we know that matters. This is just a crime blog where we exchange opinions based on what facts we do know at the time.

We will not know many of the facts in evidence LE.. has gathered to date and beyond. They never divulge their best evidence until the presiding judge gives them a firm date for all discovery to be turned over to the defense when it gets closer to trial. Even then we will not learn what all they have amassed against the defendant until his trial. That is one of the reasons trials are so interesting to me. We always learn new evidence and at times it can be shocking when finally learned.

Oh let me ask you this please. I know he has been arraigned...correct? Will he have a preliminary hearing? If so we usually learn facts we didn't know because they are like mini trials. If he waives it I think the prosecutor will continue to hold his evidence close to their chest.

I find PHs..almost as interesting as the trial itself. When Scott Dylexi..murdered Pam Vitale the PH lasted 3 weeks.

Imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It’s not a level playing field, the prosecution has an uphill battle. What he has confessed requires one to assume what probably happened, there may or may not be evidence to support those assumptions, and the defense is going to spend a lot of money and effort collecting evidence and building a case that will contradict those assumptions. The rules for Discovery dictate that the defense will know everything that is going to be used against them and they’ll have plenty of opportunity to refute it.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think he’s probably guilty - but that’s not the legal standard. This is not a slam dunk and I’m sure the prosecution already knows this.

Imoo..I think the defense will be the one who will have an up hill battle.

Jmoo

 

[Mica]

The bare bone facts like we normally do in other cases similar to this one.

But it is not what we know that matters. This is just a crime blog where we exchange opinions based on what facts we do know at the time.

We will not know many of the facts in evidence LE.. has gathered to date and beyond. They never divulge their best evidence until the presiding judge gives them a firm date for all discovery to be turned over to the defense when it gets closer to trial. Even then we will not learn what all they have amassed against the defendant until his trial. That is one of the reasons trials are so interesting to me. We always learn new evidence and at times it can be shocking when finally learned.

Oh let me ask you this please. I know he has been arraigned...correct? Will he have a preliminary hearing? If so we usually learn facts we didn't know because they are like mini trials. If he waives it I think the prosecutor will continue to hold his evidence close to their chest.

I find PHs..almost as interesting as the trial itself. When Scott Dylexi..murdered Pam Vitale the PH lasted 3 weeks.

Imo

CR waived his preliminary hearing.

 

[TL4S]

My understanding (which is amateur) is that the defense doesn't have to prove CR is a good or intelligent person, they only have to reason a little bit of doubt into the events of one night. If he insists he didn't intend to hurt her, and doesn't remember the murder itself, then it isn't whether or not he is a saint, it's whether or not a person can be convicted of Murder One when there is no confession, and no witnesses or forensics pinpointing that the murder was done by a wilful party.

If he claims she was alive with no sharp force trauma injuries when he put her in his trunk, then "blocked" his "memories" until the intersection prior to the cornfield, where he found her dead in his trunk, and forensics can't prove otherwise (or can prove it happened somewhere other than 385th or the cornfield), couldn't the defense come up with arguments to offer reasonable doubt to first degree murder?

Yeah, he's an *advertiser censored**hole for approaching her and putting her in his trunk (likely injured), and he's a for hiding her body in a cornfield, but if the leather glove doesn't fit...

 

[rebel123]

The bare bone facts like we normally do in other cases similar to this one.

But it is not what we know that matters. This is just a crime blog where we exchange opinions based on what facts we do know at the time.

We will not know many of the facts in evidence LE.. has gathered to date and beyond. They never divulge their best evidence until the presiding judge gives them a firm date for all discovery to be turned over to the defense when it gets closer to trial. Even then we will not learn what all they have amassed against the defendant until his trial. That is one of the reasons trials are so interesting to me. We always learn new evidence and at times it can be shocking when finally learned.

Oh let me ask you this please. I know he has been arraigned...correct? Will he have a preliminary hearing? If so we usually learn facts we didn't know because they are like mini trials. If he waives it I think the prosecutor will continue to hold his evidence close to their chest.

I find PHs..almost as interesting as the trial itself. When Scott Dylexi..murdered Pam Vitale the PH lasted 3 weeks.

Imo

I think bits and pieces might 'leak' in the next 7 months or so; the prosecution will have to show they have enough evidence and a 'iron clad' case to go to Trial.

 

[MistyWaters]

I think bits and pieces might 'leak' in the next 7 months or so; the prosecution will have to show they have enough evidence and a 'iron clad' case to go to Trial.

The purpose of a Preliminary Hearing is to determine if there’s enough evidence for a trial. As the defence already waived it, that stage has passed.

 

[rebel123]

The purpose of a Preliminary Hearing is to determine if there’s enough evidence for a trial. As the defence already waived it, that stage has passed.

I'd say we know 35% of the information LE have or will have.

 

[MistyWaters]

My understanding (which is amateur) is that the defense doesn't have to prove CR is a good or intelligent person, they only have to reason a little bit of doubt into the events of one night. If he insists he didn't intend to hurt her, and doesn't remember the murder itself, then it isn't whether or not he is a saint, it's whether or not a person can be convicted of Murder One when there is no confession, and no witnesses or forensics pinpointing that the murder was done by a wilful party.

If he claims she was alive with no sharp force trauma injuries when he put her in his trunk, then "blocked" his "memories" until the intersection prior to the cornfield, where he found her dead in his trunk, and forensics can't prove otherwise (or can prove it happened somewhere other than 385th or the cornfield), couldn't the defense come up with arguments to offer reasonable doubt to first degree murder?

Yeah, he's an *advertiser censored**hole for approaching her and putting her in his trunk (likely injured), and he's a for hiding her body in a cornfield, but if the leather glove doesn't fit...

Sympathy ploys are generally offered as a mitigation during the sentencing stage, after a criminal has been convicted. Or at parole hearings. But upon a verdict of guilty of 1st degree murder, there’s no reduction from life without any parole.

Otherwise can you imagine the elation of the prosecution if CR took the witness stand, admitting his guilt but insisting he didn’t mean to inflict the multiple sharp force injuries? Because it doesn’t matter how he felt later or even what he says he remembered later - the question posed to the jury will be does the evidence prove CR deliberately caused the death of MT? I don’t think it’s possible to find 12 people who’d dispute the fact that inflicting sharp force injuries is most likely to cause death. Later he didn’t drop her off at a hospital, he didn’t turn himself in or even send in an anonymous tip to LE to help them locate the body in the cornfield, dead or alive, instead of putting her family through weeks of false hope. I agree with others, he never planned on getting caught and any remorse comes from the fact that he was.

 

[gliving]

Imoo..I think the defense will be the one who will have an up hill battle.

Jmoo

Yes, the defense will have to pull a rabbit out of their hats to convince the good citizens of Powesheik county that CR is innocent. Like an accomplice. Or CR was set up.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I think bits and pieces might 'leak' in the next 7 months or so; the prosecution will have to show they have enough evidence and a 'iron clad' case to go to Trial.

Is there a gag order in place? Although its rare that prosecutors speak out about the evidence they have in any case.

However if there isn't a gag order it is usually the defense attorneys who speak with the media. They can say anything even if untrue because they are not in the well of the court.

A perfect example of that was when Mark Garegos told the media that Scott Peterson was stone cold innocent and he had evidence to prove it. All of it was hogwash and MG had no evidence proving his client did not murder Laci and Connor.

I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say the prosecution will have to leak showing they have an iron clad case???

I don't know of any prosecutor who thinks he has to convince anyone in the public he has an iron clad case.

While some may think prosecutors have to prove their case to the public at large that simply is not true.

The only ones who will see the evidence against this defendant..other than the defendant/defense attorneys.... will be the jurors who will sit in judgement. Criminal cases are tried in courtrooms...not the court of public opinion.

Let me ask this again in case you missed it in my previous post.

Is this defendant going to have a PH or are they going to the grand jury instead? Those are the two different options where it will be decided if there is enough probable cause to go forward to trial. So there is no need for them to leak in order to advance it to trial since those are the legal options for any DA.

Jmo

 

[SharonNeedles]

My understanding (which is amateur) is that the defense doesn't have to prove CR is a good or intelligent person, they only have to reason a little bit of doubt into the events of one night. If he insists he didn't intend to hurt her, and doesn't remember the murder itself, then it isn't whether or not he is a saint, it's whether or not a person can be convicted of Murder One when there is no confession, and no witnesses or forensics pinpointing that the murder was done by a wilful party.

If he claims she was alive with no sharp force trauma injuries when he put her in his trunk, then "blocked" his "memories" until the intersection prior to the cornfield, where he found her dead in his trunk, and forensics can't prove otherwise (or can prove it happened somewhere other than 385th or the cornfield), couldn't the defense come up with arguments to offer reasonable doubt to first degree murder?

Yeah, he's an *advertiser censored**hole for approaching her and putting her in his trunk (likely injured), and he's a for hiding her body in a cornfield, but if the leather glove doesn't fit...

You’re exactly right. Defendant does not have a burden of proof.

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes, the defense will have to pull a rabbit out of their hats to convince the good citizens of Powesheik county that CR is innocent. Like an accomplice. Or CR was set up.

The facts of the case go against CR as he already admitted too many incriminating details. If the victim had been a girlfriend or ex and there was some underlying dispute or feud, maybe he’d have a defense. But Mollie was neither and by CRs own account she wasn’t the one hassling him. She was minding her own business, innocently out for an evening run when he began stalking her, then pursuing her. The memory “block” argument also fails at that point because he admitted to getting mad and upset as opposed to backing off and leaving her alone. Self-serving excuses are not justifiable grounds for murder.

I have no doubt the prosecution will take every opportunity to remind the jury of the circumstances of this case. Each of the 12 members will relate to a similar situation involving themselves, their daughter, mother, neice, friend or neighbour, and be absolutely sickened by the horror of imagining Mollie being chased down, unable to outrun her killer.

 

[gliving]

You’re exactly right. Defendant does not have a burden of proof.

I suppose the defense's burden is poking holes in the evidence. A burden of casting a shadow of doubt. It will be interesting to see how they do this. Because right now, it doesn't look good for their client.

Perhaps their client was kicked in the head by a cow the day of the incident. His employer was negligent in getting care for him. Anything that casts a doubt.