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

[Jaclin]

I think it depends on the state and the prosecution's view on the chances. If you give lesser included charges there's a worry that jurors may decide on a lesser charge to "split the difference" if not everyone is 100% on board with 1st degree murder, when if there wasn't an option for that, they would eventually come around to 1st degree murder.

The main exception is the Supreme Court has held that in a death penalty case, you must include lesser included charges. You have to give jurors the option to convict on something less than death.

MOO it would be better to risk someone being convicted of murder 2 instead of murder 1 than allowing that person the chance to just get off right away and go kill again. I can see the death penalty actually encouraging people to vote for Murder 2...people that feel like they don't want to be responsible for someone's death, and especially if they aren't 100% convinced they meant to kill them and not just threaten or scare them. I think the opposite might be true in a state with no death penalty. I know rules are rules but people are people, and if someone is sitting on the edge they might be more likely to vote murder 1 in a state with no death penalty. the attitude that they aren't 100% sure it was premeditated, but they're sure they did it, and they figure why not lock the gate and throw away the key. no use deliberating on it for days and losing sleep over it when everyone else is convinced. the worse thing that happens is someone who took someone's life never enjoys freedom again. well, the person they killed will never enjoy freedom on Earth again, either. I wouldn't feel too bad if I later found out I convicted someone of Murder 1 in a state with no death penalty and they really didn't premeditate. I would feel bad if I convicted someone to death, and it turned out they really didn't mean to kill them.

 

[Confusion]

It's definitely proof of being involved in disposing of her body. The fact that he also admits to following her, getting angry, and putting her in the trunk is proof enough for me that he did it. It's the premeditation where the state has the most work to do, I think.

BBM
I could be wrong, and should look it up before posting, but I don't think he did actually admit to putting her in the trunk. What I remember him saying was that seeing the ear bud in his lap made him remember that she was in the trunk. That would leave open the possibility (no matter how improbable) that someone else put her in there. When he first confessed, I thought he was handing them their case on a silver platter, but the more time passes, the more it seems like his words were very carefully chosen. It's like he wanted it to be clear to everyone that he had done it without giving any kind of evidence of it.

He admitted to driving past her a few times, but not stalking her. He admitted to running behind her before anything happened, but not chasing her (then). He admitted to her telling him to go away, but I don't remember him admitting to saying anything to her. He admits getting upset/angry and chasing her, but doesn't admit to assaulting her. He admits to removing her from the trunk, but not to putting her in there. When I first read what he had confessed to, I thought he had admitted everything except the actual assault/murder; now I'm beginning to see that he almost had to have left out a lot of important information. MOO

 

[tmar]

Let’s all take a moment and be thankful IM didn’t show up with the baby lol

Once, I was sitting back in Court, observing, and this is exactly what happened: the female partner had her young child present, for sympathy!!!

 

[The Farm]

It's such an old ploy but they still try it.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

JMO, but I look for the DT to throw reasonable doubt by using a SODDI tactic, namely the two workers who disappeared soon after CBR was arrested, do I think it will work?...nope

 

[Mica]

BBM
I could be wrong, and should look it up before posting, but I don't think he did actually admit to putting her in the trunk. What I remember him saying was that seeing the ear bud in his lap made him remember that she was in the trunk. That would leave open the possibility (no matter how improbable) that someone else put her in there. When he first confessed, I thought he was handing them their case on a silver platter, but the more time passes, the more it seems like his words were very carefully chosen. It's like he wanted it to be clear to everyone that he had done it without giving any kind of evidence of it.

He admitted to driving past her a few times, but not stalking her. He admitted to running behind her before anything happened, but not chasing her (then). He admitted to her telling him to go away, but I don't remember him admitting to saying anything to her. He admits getting upset/angry and chasing her, but doesn't admit to assaulting her. He admits to removing her from the trunk, but not to putting her in there. When I first read what he had confessed to, I thought he had admitted everything except the actual assault/murder; now I'm beginning to see that he almost had to have left out a lot of important information. MOO

Everything you stated here makes me think CR is much smarter and savvy than that of a person with a 5th or 6th grade education. Wondering if he had help in concocting his story? If not, he is much brighter than his defense attorneys want the public to believe, IMO. Where was he reading? Who was he talking to prior to questioning? Hopefully his computer (if he has one) and his cell hold the answers.

 

[TL4S]

BBM
I could be wrong, and should look it up before posting, but I don't think he did actually admit to putting her in the trunk. What I remember him saying was that seeing the ear bud in his lap made him remember that she was in the trunk. That would leave open the possibility (no matter how improbable) that someone else put her in there. When he first confessed, I thought he was handing them their case on a silver platter, but the more time passes, the more it seems like his words were very carefully chosen. It's like he wanted it to be clear to everyone that he had done it without giving any kind of evidence of it.

He admitted to driving past her a few times, but not stalking her. He admitted to running behind her before anything happened, but not chasing her (then). He admitted to her telling him to go away, but I don't remember him admitting to saying anything to her. He admits getting upset/angry and chasing her, but doesn't admit to assaulting her. He admits to removing her from the trunk, but not to putting her in there. When I first read what he had confessed to, I thought he had admitted everything except the actual assault/murder; now I'm beginning to see that he almost had to have left out a lot of important information. MOO

According to the affidavit, it did say when he saw the earbud on his lap he realized he'd "put" her in the trunk. But yes, he did skip over many key points.

 

[Followfacts]

BBM
I could be wrong, and should look it up before posting, but I don't think he did actually admit to putting her in the trunk. What I remember him saying was that seeing the ear bud in his lap made him remember that she was in the trunk. That would leave open the possibility (no matter how improbable) that someone else put her in there. When he first confessed, I thought he was handing them their case on a silver platter, but the more time passes, the more it seems like his words were very carefully chosen. It's like he wanted it to be clear to everyone that he had done it without giving any kind of evidence of it.

He admitted to driving past her a few times, but not stalking her. He admitted to running behind her before anything happened, but not chasing her (then). He admitted to her telling him to go away, but I don't remember him admitting to saying anything to her. He admits getting upset/angry and chasing her, but doesn't admit to assaulting her. He admits to removing her from the trunk, but not to putting her in there. When I first read what he had confessed to, I thought he had admitted everything except the actual assault/murder; now I'm beginning to see that he almost had to have left out a lot of important information. MOO

I agree, the prosecution is going to need a lot more than his “confession” as it reads in the arrest warrant. So much emphasis is put on having a body, statements like it’s hard to convict without a body.. well we have one here and it’s still possible to say, Did He Do It??? All he said is he took her out of trunk, dragged her by foot, then over the shoulder with her body and then placed her in cornfield face up. I sure hope they get more than digital evidence.. if I were on jury I would NEED forensics tying him directly to the murder of Mollie.. the murder weapon, dna, blood on his clothes, forensics of his on her remains, his confession to murdering mollie, him telling his buddies he did it, a trophy of mollies that they found in the search, her phone her clothing with blood evidence of his dna... what else???
Btw I totally believe he did it, murder 1, but to get in that jury with 11 others and have defense introduce reasonable doubt here there and everywhere, we would have to listen to the defense and at least think about what they believe happened.

 

[MistyWaters]

BBM
I could be wrong, and should look it up before posting, but I don't think he did actually admit to putting her in the trunk. What I remember him saying was that seeing the ear bud in his lap made him remember that she was in the trunk. That would leave open the possibility (no matter how improbable) that someone else put her in there. When he first confessed, I thought he was handing them their case on a silver platter, but the more time passes, the more it seems like his words were very carefully chosen. It's like he wanted it to be clear to everyone that he had done it without giving any kind of evidence of it.

He admitted to driving past her a few times, but not stalking her. He admitted to running behind her before anything happened, but not chasing her (then). He admitted to her telling him to go away, but I don't remember him admitting to saying anything to her. He admits getting upset/angry and chasing her, but doesn't admit to assaulting her. He admits to removing her from the trunk, but not to putting her in there. When I first read what he had confessed to, I thought he had admitted everything except the actual assault/murder; now I'm beginning to see that he almost had to have left out a lot of important information. MOO

I think the purpose of the brief summary typed on the affidavit was only to provide just enough detail to support the arrest warrant for 1st degree murder. One paragraph cannot possibly be the full transcript as LE said CR was cooperative and interviewed for “many” hours.

Maybe it was LE who left out a lot of important information? For example, it was during the press conference that Rahn mentioned CR chased Molly after she took off running, following her asking him to leave her alone and threatening to call police. That Mollie attempted to flee and he admitted to chasing her is quite an important detail although it didn’t appear in the affidavit.

 

[Al Hoffman]

Delete post

 

[Al Hoffman]

Delete post

 

[Warwick7]

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services told Fox News in August that “a search of records by USCIS revealed Rivera did not make any DACA requests nor were any grants given.”
Mollie Tibbetts' Alleged Killer Cristhian Rivera Bahena Pleads Not Guilty

 

[Al Hoffman]

His appearance won’t matter in the slightest until his trial. No point in cleaning up to look good in his striped jail jumpsuit.

You never know when someone will ask you for a date!

 

[Jerrod]

American Bar Association > Trial Evidence > The CSI Effect in Jurors

“The CSI Effect has purportedly led to jurors’ unreasonable demands for definite physical evidence at trial. Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case. They expect us to have the most advanced technology possible, and they expect it to look like it does on television. The CSI Effect has perhaps rewritten the standard burden of proof in the criminal context from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “beyond any doubt.” In other words, it is completely dependent on seemingly error-proof forensic, scientific, technological evidence. A troublesome aspect of the CSI Effect is that some of the technology jurors may have come to expect may not exist, and, even if it does exist, availability does not correlate with admissibility.”

Managing the CSI Effect in Jurors | Trial Evidence Committee | ABA Section of Litigation

 

[Alethea]

I think the purpose of the brief summary typed on the affidavit was only to provide just enough detail to support the arrest warrant for 1st degree murder. One paragraph cannot possibly be the full transcript as LE said CR was cooperative and interviewed for “many” hours.

Maybe it was LE who left out a lot of important information? For example, it was during the press conference that Rahn mentioned CR chased Molly after she took off running, following her asking him to leave her alone and threatening to call police. That Mollie attempted to flee and he admitted to chasing her is quite an important detail although it didn’t appear in the affidavit.

FBI affidavits usually include that very disclaimer in the introduction. They specifically say this affidavit does not include all relevant investigatory material but rather contains what we believe establishes probable cause. They can be strategic and not disclose specific information that they feel is sensitive or would be prejudicial, or could harm another case (like a co-conspirator or accomplice)

 

[Al Hoffman]

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

JIMHIOO - Less than 15% at best. LE and AG are keeping this hand close to the chest!

 

[Warwick7]

This may have been stated and I missed it, but, CR is being represented by 2 different firms. The married couple do not work for the same firm.

Mollie Tibbetts case: Suspect Cristhian Rivera changes lawyers

 

[Warwick7]

FBI affidavits usually include that very disclaimer in the introduction. They specifically say this affidavit does not include all relevant investigatory material but rather contains what we believe establishes probable cause. They can be strategic and not disclose specific information that they feel is sensitive or would be prejudicial, or could harm another case (like a co-conspirator or accomplice)

I read this too. Only what they can use as probable cause. But, I'm happy with that. This tells me, yes they are holding a lot more to the best.

 

[Warwick7]

really? there was some redness in his cheeks that I didn't notice the first time. very slight. his eyes were a little red. If it isn't some type of trick to make him look more emotional (less stone faced) by staying up for 2 days or an inability to sleep for another reason, then maybe he is coming down with something. He really didn't look good.

Altho I am ok with this. I want him to feel the consequences.

 

[Warwick7]

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.

Interesting..... I guess I didn't read that before. His involvement confirmed the time line. Wow!