Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 *Arrest* #47

[mickey2942]

This I also wonder if there’s any truth to this defence allegation -

“......Rivera's attorneys filed a motion to suppress evidence in March and again in August, requesting that the judge exclude as evidence at trial his statements and physical evidence, arguing in part that his Miranda rights were violated, that he was offered promissory leniency — a promise that something could be gained from confessing....”
Mollie Tibbetts case: Unidentified fingerprints, blood found in Cristhian Bahena Rivera's trunk, records show
(same link to other quotes below)

Because it’s well established if a suspect is questioned for hours and hours on end, deprived of sleep, lacks understanding the intricacies of the justice system, and is unduly fearful of authority obtaining false confessions becomes quite possible. One of the ways that occurs is by LE asking leading questions.

Without seeing a transcribed transcript of the hours of questioning I’d also be curious to know how many times he was asked “did you kill her and then place her body in the trunk?” and, as a hypothetical example, after the 25th time he finally answered “yes” - well indeed, that’s still considered a confession. Because LE obviously knew blood was found in the trunk as it was being tested all the while CR was being questioned.

“Around 11:30 p.m., after a few hours of interviews, Bahena Rivera was detained and was read an incomplete version of his Miranda rights, court records show. Division of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Trent Vileta said during testimony in November that a Miranda warning was read after blood that matched Tibbetts' DNA was found in the Malibu's trunk.”

I guess in some ways I’m seeing shades of Brendan Dassey and whether he’s truly guilty or innocent, how his confession was obtained by observing the videos of LE questioning tactics on the Netflix documentary. I think it left many people feeling somewhat unsettled on the topic of LE and promissory leniency in general.

If indeed there was enough enough to charge CR without his “confession”, why didn’t LE just arrest him and the basis of the physical evidence?

I also wonder what this eludes to -

“The state chooses not to specifically respond to the characterizations of the evidence made by the defense as it relates to DNA mixtures in the trunk of the Malibu," Assistant Attorney General Scott Brown wrote in the state's resistance. "Suffice it to say that the state disagrees with those characterizations in the defense motion."

If I was a juror, I think it would ultimately become very important to me to hear recorded evidence of CR leading LE to the body. And I’d want to feel confident he did so freely by retracing his movements, removing any doubt in my mind that he had access to second-hand information or that for some very far-fetched unthinkable reason, LE didn’t utilize prior knowledge to lead him there.

But this is only just my opinion.....why I also think this case is becoming not quite a slam dunk conviction in view of the information that’s began to creep out by the defence team at this point in time. I have no idea if CR will be proven guilty or innocent but this case will be an interesting trial to follow, that’s for sure. Justice for Molly is what’s most important at the end of the day.

And I suppose that other people think, "Justice for Rivera".

I agree, that there have been issues of false confessions. In this case, he is guilty. Let's hope that it works out.

 

[Seattle1]

This I also wonder if there’s any truth to this defence allegation -

“......Rivera's attorneys filed a motion to suppress evidence in March and again in August, requesting that the judge exclude as evidence at trial his statements and physical evidence, arguing in part that his Miranda rights were violated, that he was offered promissory leniency — a promise that something could be gained from confessing....”
Mollie Tibbetts case: Unidentified fingerprints, blood found in Cristhian Bahena Rivera's trunk, records show
(same link to other quotes below)

Because it’s well established if a suspect is questioned for hours and hours on end, deprived of sleep, lacks understanding the intricacies of the justice system, and is unduly fearful of authority obtaining false confessions becomes quite possible. One of the ways that occurs is by LE asking leading questions.

Without seeing a transcribed transcript of the hours of questioning I’d also be curious to know how many times he was asked “did you kill her and then place her body in the trunk?” and, as a hypothetical example, after the 25th time he finally answered “yes” - well indeed, that’s still considered a confession. Because LE obviously knew blood was found in the trunk as it was being tested all the while CR was being questioned.

“Around 11:30 p.m., after a few hours of interviews, Bahena Rivera was detained and was read an incomplete version of his Miranda rights, court records show. Division of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Trent Vileta said during testimony in November that a Miranda warning was read after blood that matched Tibbetts' DNA was found in the Malibu's trunk.”

I guess in some ways I’m seeing shades of Brendan Dassey and whether he’s truly guilty or innocent, how his confession was obtained by observing the videos of LE questioning tactics on the Netflix documentary. I think it left many people feeling somewhat unsettled on the topic of LE and promissory leniency in general.

If indeed there was enough enough to charge CR without his “confession”, why didn’t LE just arrest him and the basis of the physical evidence?

I also wonder what this eludes to -

“The state chooses not to specifically respond to the characterizations of the evidence made by the defense as it relates to DNA mixtures in the trunk of the Malibu," Assistant Attorney General Scott Brown wrote in the state's resistance. "Suffice it to say that the state disagrees with those characterizations in the defense motion."

If I was a juror, I think it would ultimately become very important to me to hear recorded evidence of CR leading LE to the body. And I’d want to feel confident he did so freely by retracing his movements, removing any doubt in my mind that he had access to second-hand information or that for some very far-fetched unthinkable reason, LE didn’t utilize prior knowledge to lead him there.

But this is only just my opinion.....why I also think this case is becoming not quite a slam dunk conviction in view of the information that’s began to creep out by the defence team at this point in time. I have no idea if CR will be proven guilty or innocent but this case will be an interesting trial to follow, that’s for sure. Justice for Molly is what’s most important at the end of the day.

Here's the deal -- CR's defense made these same allegations last March and amended their claim in August to add that nobody told CR he could have called the Mexican Consulate.

The suppression hearings were held, witnesses testified, and Judge Yates delivered his ruling in December --

And to no surprise, Yates disagreed with most of Bahena Rivera's assertions.

And here's the rub: CR's defense had him make statements alleging he didn't understand his rights, claimed limited education, feigned ignorance and presented this claim to the court in the form of an affidavit. Since CR waited to make these claims, the prosecutor had a right to question him. When his defense would not allow CR questioned under oath at the hearing, the affidavit was thrown out and cannot be admitted in this trial.

The defense is doing nothing more but trying to force the earlier failed affidavit about CR's alleged limited Mexican education and feigned ignorance on the court -- using a higher court.

The defense argument here is tired and should be retired! The best they can achieve is to delay the trial, again.

MOO

Yates in his December ruling disagreed with Bahena Rivera's assertions that his rights were violated, concluding that 25-year-old Bahena Rivera did consent to the search of his car; that his statements were made voluntarily despite his claims of sleep deprivation and lengthy interrogation; and that law enforcement did not use language likely to induce a false confession, according to court documents.

The Freses argued in their application for discretionary review of an interlocutory order filed to the Supreme Court on Sunday that Bahena Rivera's position as an immigrant with "a very limited Mexican education" made him unfamiliar with the U.S. criminal justice system and prevented him from understanding the Miranda rights he was read.

Had he understood his right to counsel, Bahena Rivera would have consulted with representatives from the Mexican consulate before giving any statements to law enforcement, they argued.

 

[MistyWaters]

Here's the deal -- CR's defense made these same allegations last March and amended their claim in August to add that nobody told CR he could have called the Mexican Consulate.

The suppression hearings were held, witnesses testified, and Judge Yates delivered his ruling in December --

And to no surprise, Yates disagreed with most of Bahena Rivera's assertions.

And here's the rub: CR's defense had him make statements alleging he didn't understand his rights, claimed limited education, feigned ignorance and presented this claim to the court in the form of an affidavit. Since CR waited to make these claims, the prosecutor had a right to question him. When his defense would not allow CR questioned under oath at the hearing, the affidavit was thrown out and cannot be admitted in this trial.

The defense is doing nothing more but trying to force the earlier failed affidavit about CR's alleged limited Mexican education and feigned ignorance on the court -- using a higher court.

The defense argument here is tired and should be retired! The best they can achieve is to delay the trial, again.

MOO

Yates in his December ruling disagreed with Bahena Rivera's assertions that his rights were violated, concluding that 25-year-old Bahena Rivera did consent to the search of his car; that his statements were made voluntarily despite his claims of sleep deprivation and lengthy interrogation; and that law enforcement did not use language likely to induce a false confession, according to court documents.

The Freses argued in their application for discretionary review of an interlocutory order filed to the Supreme Court on Sunday that Bahena Rivera's position as an immigrant with "a very limited Mexican education" made him unfamiliar with the U.S. criminal justice system and prevented him from understanding the Miranda rights he was read.

Had he understood his right to counsel, Bahena Rivera would have consulted with representatives from the Mexican consulate before giving any statements to law enforcement, they argued.

According to the most recent news report, the latest request for delay also involves a report provided to the defence indicating unidentified blood and fingerprints of two others individuals was found in the trunk of the Malibu. It’s reported elsewhere this report was provided to the defence only on Jan 15th. As it was identified Molly’s blood was in the trunk while CR was interviewed last August, it’s not indicated why this additional information was released at the 11th hour. But I think the defence would be remiss if they simply ignored it as it gives future cause for ineffective counsel. Therefore it seems to me the defence is merely exercising due diligence in the representation of their client, a responsibility mandated to them by law.

Even though we’re anxiously awaiting this trial to proceed, I’d prefer the defence is left with no room to appeal after a conviction and regardless, until a trial occurs CR is locked away....as opposed to an accused who is enjoying extended freedom while out on bail.

“Attorneys for the man accused of killing University of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts want to delay the upcoming murder trial while they sort out what they describe as the state’s recent revelation of unidentified blood and fingerprint evidence in the case.....

.....According to their motion, Bahena Rivera’s attorneys — Chad and Jennifer Frese — assert they only recently received DNA and fingerprint reports from the state’s criminologist.

Those reports indicated blood from two others was found along with Tibbetts’ blood in the Malibu’s trunk — neither of which matched Bahena Rivera. A set of fingerprints that did not match him also was found in the trunk.

Highlighting the evidence as “highly exculpatory,” the defense attorneys asked for time so their investigators could follow up on the blood and fingerprint evidence....”
Defense asks Mollie Tibbetts murder trial be delayed over blood and fingerprint evidence

 

[MaODill]

This trial keeps getting postponed, evidence is possibly being thrown out,and it's heartbreaking. Everyone knows he did it. Including his attorneys, it's horrible.

 

[Seattle1]

According to the most recent news report, the latest request for delay also involves a report provided to the defence indicating unidentified blood and fingerprints of two others individuals was found in the trunk of the Malibu. It’s reported elsewhere this report was provided to the defence only on Jan 15th. As it was identified Molly’s blood was in the trunk while CR was interviewed last August, it’s not indicated why this additional information was released at the 11th hour. But I think the defence would be remiss if they simply ignored it as it gives future cause for ineffective counsel. Therefore it seems to me the defence is merely exercising due diligence in the representation of their client, a responsibility mandated to them by law.

Even though we’re anxiously awaiting this trial to proceed, I’d prefer the defence is left with no room to appeal after a conviction and regardless, until a trial occurs CR is locked away....as opposed to an accused who is enjoying extended freedom while out on bail.

“Attorneys for the man accused of killing University of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts want to delay the upcoming murder trial while they sort out what they describe as the state’s recent revelation of unidentified blood and fingerprint evidence in the case.....

.....According to their motion, Bahena Rivera’s attorneys — Chad and Jennifer Frese — assert they only recently received DNA and fingerprint reports from the state’s criminologist.

Those reports indicated blood from two others was found along with Tibbetts’ blood in the Malibu’s trunk — neither of which matched Bahena Rivera. A set of fingerprints that did not match him also was found in the trunk.

Highlighting the evidence as “highly exculpatory,” the defense attorneys asked for time so their investigators could follow up on the blood and fingerprint evidence....”
Defense asks Mollie Tibbetts murder trial be delayed over blood and fingerprint evidence

True but this has nothing to do with the defense application for discretionary review of an interlocutory order filed to the Supreme Court on Sunday. The new evidence can be dealt with as all late evidence introduced prior to trial.

 

[MsGazette]

Could someone direct me to a “NEWS & Media Links - no discussion” thread for Mollie? TIA

 

[Seattle1]

Could someone direct me to a “NEWS & Media Links - no discussion” thread for Mollie? TIA

Link on page 1 of every new thread 1 - 47.

MEDIA, MAPS & TIMELINES - NO DISCUSSION - Mollie Tibbetts,20, Poweshiek County

 

[MsGazette]

Link on page 1 of every new thread 1 - 47.

MEDIA, MAPS & TIMELINES - NO DISCUSSION - Mollie Tibbetts,20, Poweshiek County

Thank you so much!

 

[glamourkitty1922]

This I also wonder if there’s any truth to this defence allegation -

“......Rivera's attorneys filed a motion to suppress evidence in March and again in August, requesting that the judge exclude as evidence at trial his statements and physical evidence, arguing in part that his Miranda rights were violated, that he was offered promissory leniency — a promise that something could be gained from confessing....”
Mollie Tibbetts case: Unidentified fingerprints, blood found in Cristhian Bahena Rivera's trunk, records show
(same link to other quotes below)

Because it’s well established if a suspect is questioned for hours and hours on end, deprived of sleep, lacks understanding the intricacies of the justice system, and is unduly fearful of authority obtaining false confessions becomes quite possible. One of the ways that occurs is by LE asking leading questions.

Without seeing a transcribed transcript of the hours of questioning I’d also be curious to know how many times he was asked “did you kill her and then place her body in the trunk?” and, as a hypothetical example, after the 25th time he finally answered “yes” - well indeed, that’s still considered a confession. Because LE obviously knew blood was found in the trunk as it was being tested all the while CR was being questioned.

“Around 11:30 p.m., after a few hours of interviews, Bahena Rivera was detained and was read an incomplete version of his Miranda rights, court records show. Division of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Trent Vileta said during testimony in November that a Miranda warning was read after blood that matched Tibbetts' DNA was found in the Malibu's trunk.”

I guess in some ways I’m seeing shades of Brendan Dassey and whether he’s truly guilty or innocent, how his confession was obtained by observing the videos of LE questioning tactics on the Netflix documentary. I think it left many people feeling somewhat unsettled on the topic of LE and promissory leniency in general.

If indeed there was enough enough to charge CR without his “confession”, why didn’t LE just arrest him and the basis of the physical evidence?

I also wonder what this eludes to -

“The state chooses not to specifically respond to the characterizations of the evidence made by the defense as it relates to DNA mixtures in the trunk of the Malibu," Assistant Attorney General Scott Brown wrote in the state's resistance. "Suffice it to say that the state disagrees with those characterizations in the defense motion."

If I was a juror, I think it would ultimately become very important to me to hear recorded evidence of CR leading LE to the body. And I’d want to feel confident he did so freely by retracing his movements, removing any doubt in my mind that he had access to second-hand information or that for some very far-fetched unthinkable reason, LE didn’t utilize prior knowledge to lead him there.

But this is only just my opinion.....why I also think this case is becoming not quite a slam dunk conviction in view of the information that’s began to creep out by the defence team at this point in time. I have no idea if CR will be proven guilty or innocent but this case will be an interesting trial to follow, that’s for sure. Justice for Molly is what’s most important at the end of the day.

As someone who has been on more than several jury trials, I doubt the jury will care about why the defendant escorted the police to the body, but only that the defendant DID escort the police to the body.

 

[lukass_6]

I also wonder what this eludes to -

“The state chooses not to specifically respond to the characterizations of the evidence made by the defense as it relates to DNA mixtures in the trunk of the Malibu," Assistant Attorney General Scott Brown wrote in the state's resistance. "Suffice it to say that the state disagrees with those characterizations in the defense motion."

If I was a juror, I think it would ultimately become very important to me to hear recorded evidence of CR leading LE to the body. And I’d want to feel confident he did so freely by retracing his movements, removing any doubt in my mind that he had access to second-hand information or that for some very far-fetched unthinkable reason, LE didn’t utilize prior knowledge to lead him there.

But this is only just my opinion.....why I also think this case is becoming not quite a slam dunk conviction in view of the information that’s began to creep out by the defence team at this point in time. I have no idea if CR will be proven guilty or innocent but this case will be an interesting trial to follow, that’s for sure. Justice for Molly is what’s most important at the end of the day.

Here’s the kicker! The cop forgot to turn on his camera while CR allegedly led the cops to her body, and they only turned it on once they were AT the cornfield. So I’m not even sure if there’s solid evidence that he led them to her body.

 

[MassGuy]

Here’s the kicker! The cop forgot to turn on his camera while CR allegedly led the cops to her body, and they only turned it on once they were AT the cornfield. So I’m not even sure if there’s solid evidence that he led them to her body.

That doesn’t matter.

Law enforcement searched for weeks, and couldn’t find MT’s body. Only after interviewing CR did they find it.

In a lot of cases, it’s the officer’s word alone that is good enough. Here we have what law enforcement says, and what common sense says.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the two events are related, video or not.

This isn’t complicated.

 

[katydid23]

Here’s the kicker! The cop forgot to turn on his camera while CR allegedly led the cops to her body, and they only turned it on once they were AT the cornfield. So I’m not even sure if there’s solid evidence that he led them to her body.

He told the cops he followed her while she jogged. He told them he got out of his car and jogged alongside her. He told them that she told him to leave her alone or she'd call 911-----that triggered his anger so he admitted that he grabbed her and shoved her in his trunk---and he blocked out whatever happened next because he was so angry...The next thing he remembers, he is parked in front of a cornfield.

So who do you think led the cops to that body in the cornfield?

 

[Rocky1]

That doesn’t matter.

Law enforcement searched for weeks, and couldn’t find MT’s body. Only after interviewing CR did they find it.

In a lot of cases, it’s the officer’s word alone that is good enough. Here we have what law enforcement says, and what common sense says.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the two events are related, video or not.

This isn’t complicated.

"That doesn't matter?"
Of course it matters. Every step that LE makes during a murder investigation matters.

"In a lot of cases it's the officers word alone that is good?"

Good for what? To convict someone on a murder charge?
If that's the case, then God help us all .
Would you please cite a case where a cops testimony alone "was good enough" to get someone convicted for murder? I'd love to read that.
Although testimony from a cop is evidence, cops lie, video's don't. Need a few examples?
The People Of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson.
Comonwealth vs. Kenneth Waters.
In fact, here's an entire list.
Many dishonest police officers on Brady lists still work, testify

Any defense Attorney worth their salt could knock enough holes in the fact that her body was found after interviewing CR, based on that alone. Enough to raise reasonable doubt? You betcha.
They're Attorneys. That's what Attorney's do. They make something out of nothing.

Will CR be convicted? We don't know. He hasn't gone to trial yet.

"This isn't complicated?"
I disagree. Of course it's complicated. Every murder investigation is complicated.
And when it comes to trial, it's the job of the Defense to make it complicated. The DA and prosecutors know this, and that's why detectives are supposed to be trained to cover the bases.

Unrelated, but, it didn't take a genius to figure out that Garcia Zarate shot Kate Steinle either. After all, he admitting to it, yet he was aquitted. Common sense would dictate that he had to have the gun in his hand when he shot her, yet, after being found guilty of being a Felon in posession of a firearm, his convition was overturned on appeal.

Sometimes murder trials are not always as cut and dry as we may think they are going to be.

I am no way anti LE, and I don't know all the details of this case, and with the other evidence mounted against him, this may mean nothing, however, if whatever car took them to the scene where her body was found didn't have a dash/rear facing cam with audio, then it was absurd for a cop not to have his body cam on. It may/may not mean a thing, but this is just another bunder that seems to be running rampant with LE in this country. A gap in the chain of evidence that can raise doubt, that doesn't have to be.

 

[SharonNeedles]

That doesn’t matter.

Law enforcement searched for weeks, and couldn’t find MT’s body. Only after interviewing CR did they find it.

In a lot of cases, it’s the officer’s word alone that is good enough. Here we have what law enforcement says, and what common sense says.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the two events are related, video or not.

This isn’t complicated.

I wouldn’t think this should be complicated either, but don’t underestimate Powesheik County’s ability to complicate...

 

[Bravo]

This trial keeps getting postponed, evidence is possibly being thrown out,and it's heartbreaking. Everyone knows he did it. Including his attorneys, it's horrible.

Welcome to WS

 

[MassGuy]

"That doesn't matter?"
Of course it matters. Every step that LE makes during a murder investigation matters.

"In a lot of cases it's the officers word alone that is good?"

Good for what? To convict someone on a murder charge?
If that's the case, then God help us all .
Would you please cite a case where a cops testimony alone "was good enough" to get someone convicted for murder? I'd love to read that.
Although testimony from a cop is evidence, cops lie, video's don't. Need a few examples?
The People Of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson.
Comonwealth vs. Kenneth Waters.
In fact, here's an entire list.
Many dishonest police officers on Brady lists still work, testify

Any defense Attorney worth their salt could knock enough holes in the fact that her body was found after interviewing CR, based on that alone. Enough to raise reasonable doubt? You betcha.
They're Attorneys. That's what Attorney's do. They make something out of nothing.

Will CR be convicted? We don't know. He hasn't gone to trial yet.

"This isn't complicated?"
I disagree. Of course it's complicated. Every murder investigation is complicated.
And when it comes to trial, it's the job of the Defense to make it complicated. The DA and prosecutors know this, and that's why detectives are supposed to be trained to cover the bases.

Unrelated, but, it didn't take a genius to figure out that Garcia Zarate shot Kate Steinle either. After all, he admitting to it, yet he was aquitted. Common sense would dictate that he had to have the gun in his hand when he shot her, yet, after being found guilty of being a Felon in posession of a firearm, his convition was overturned on appeal.

Sometimes murder trials are not always as cut and dry as we may think they are going to be.

I am no way anti LE, and I don't know all the details of this case, and with the other evidence mounted against him, this may mean nothing, however, if whatever car took them to the scene where her body was found didn't have a dash/rear facing cam with audio, then it was absurd for a cop not to have his body cam on. It may/may not mean a thing, but this is just another bunder that seems to be running rampant with LE in this country. A gap in the chain of evidence that can raise doubt, that doesn't have to be.

This may come as a surprise, but law enforcement didn’t always have body cameras.

Him leading them to the body was a big deal, but that’s not the only evidence against him.

An officer’s word is good enough to support a particular assertion. I didn’t say it was good enough to convict him of murder alone.

The standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and not “beyond all doubt.”

Muddying the waters and sowing confusion is merely noise, it doesn’t complicate things.

 

[Bravo]

Yep Defense spin/noise. I'm not worried about this case at all. IMO

 

[Rocky1]

This may come as a surprise, but law enforcement didn’t always have body cameras.

Him leading them to the body was a big deal, but that’s not the only evidence against him.

An officer’s word is good enough to support a particular assertion. I didn’t say it was good enough to convict him of murder alone.

The standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and not “beyond all doubt.”

Muddying the waters and sowing confusion is merely noise, it doesn’t complicate things.

It's not a surprise to me. The surprise comes into play when those cops that are issued body cams don't turn them on. It raises red flags and adds to the intensification of doubt.

I agree that's not the only evidence against him, and once again, I stated that with other evidence mounted against him, this may mean nothing however, the op was making reference to a body cam.

You didn't say either way if an officers word was good enough to support a particular assertion, or if it was enough to convict him of murder alone, and again I disagree. If an officers word is cross examined, and impeached, then his/her word is futile.
Once again, Video's don't lie.

"Muddying the waters and sowing confusion is merley making noise and doesn't complicate things?"

Really?
Ask the prosecution in the Caylee Anthony Trial, or the OJ Trial, or the second murder trial of Aaron Hernandez, just to name a few, and see if they agree with you.

 

[MistyWaters]

And then this, below. The relationship between Mollie and Jack was reported by the media as if it were a perfect love match made in heaven. Just an example that everything is not always as it appears....

BBM

“In the motion, Rivera’s attorneys write that Jack failed a lie-detector test on July 27, 2018, shortly after Tibbetts went missing. The motion states that Jack lied about an online relationship he had with a woman that Tibbetts found out about because it was “extremely embarrassing,” he wasn’t sure if it mattered, and Jack told authorities “I thought I would put it in your minds that she run away.”...”
Mollie Tibbetts murder suspect seeks delay in trial


July 24, 2018 -
Dalton Jack has been sending text messages to his girlfriend Mollie Tibbetts for six days.

He tells her he misses her.

He loves her.

He wants her to come home.

Tibbetts, 20, has been missing since last Wednesday. She hasn't answered.

"I still call her every day, too, hoping by some weird chance she will pick up," said Jack, 20. "It just goes straight to voicemail. The phone is dead."

On Tuesday, Jack said he is still hoping that she will come home to him in Brooklyn, the small farming community that watched the two sweethearts blossom for the past three years...”.
Mollie Tibbetts' boyfriend talks about the last message he received from the now-missing 20-year-old

 

[TL4S]

And then this, below. The relationship between Mollie and Jack was reported by the media as if it were a perfect love match made in heaven. Just an example that everything is not always as it appears....

BBM

“In the motion, Rivera’s attorneys write that Jack failed a lie-detector test on July 27, 2018, shortly after Tibbetts went missing. The motion states that Jack lied about an online relationship he had with a woman that Tibbetts found out about because it was “extremely embarrassing,” he wasn’t sure if it mattered, and Jack told authorities “I thought I would put it in your minds that she run away.”...”
Mollie Tibbetts murder suspect seeks delay in trial


July 24, 2018 -
Dalton Jack has been sending text messages to his girlfriend Mollie Tibbetts for six days.

He tells her he misses her.

He loves her.

He wants her to come home.

Tibbetts, 20, has been missing since last Wednesday. She hasn't answered.

"I still call her every day, too, hoping by some weird chance she will pick up," said Jack, 20. "It just goes straight to voicemail. The phone is dead."

On Tuesday, Jack said he is still hoping that she will come home to him in Brooklyn, the small farming community that watched the two sweethearts blossom for the past three years...”.
Mollie Tibbetts' boyfriend talks about the last message he received from the now-missing 20-year-old

I have no doubt CR was involved in the murder, but I think there is a heck of a lot more to this story than CR saw MT out jogging, made a rejected pass, and killed her. Unmatched blood and fingerprints could be connected, or not. DJ and MT's relationship could have played a role, or not. Too many "ifs..." I just feel there's more backstory than any of us know.