Found Deceased IA - Mollie Tibbetts, 20, Poweshiek County, 19 Jul 2018 #23

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
cybervampira

cybervampira

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
15,973
Reaction score
68,920
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Everyone,

I'd like to welcome our many new members to Websleuths. Please remember Websleuths is not like the other discussion forums. We are heavily moderated. Our goal is to stay on topic, not tear apart innocent people, and see what we can come up with looking at the evidence presented to the public by the mainstream media or law enforcement.

Here is a link to our rules. The Rules

This means you cannot randomly accuse someone of killing Mollie.

You cannot link to other sources like random YouTube videos or Facebook pages and post information from these places.

WC are initials of the pig farmer who has been brought in for questioning and had his property searched in connection with Mollie's disappearance. Police have not named him as a person of interest.

In a situation like this where a person has not been named a suspect but the police appear to be interested in him, we only allow the initials of the person to be used
This does not mean you can discuss anyone else. You can't start using Mollie's boyfriend's initials and then you post you think he may have been involved. We are doing this with WC only. Keep in mind each case is different. What we allow in another case on Websleuths does not mean we will allow the same type of discussion in Mollie's case.

As far as WC, one of our media sources that we have given the OK to use is Heavy.com

Heavy.com has provided a WC Five Fast Facts You Need to Know.

If you want to discuss what Heavy.com has provided you must use only the initials WC.

Please, do not outright accuse WC of taking Mollie, no remarks about looks, clothing, or any other insults.

The media frenzy surrounding Mollie's case is jaw-dropping and the story keeps getting bigger and bigger. As this happens sometimes the facts become lost and rumors take over.

Please stick to the facts of the case.

Thanks, everyone,
Tricia
 
images
link

*Stay on topic

*DO NOT sleuth or post personal information about non-POIs (including a wedding registry, realty information, relationships, marriage information or anything else about their background even if it is public unless it is in MSM)

*Post using initials for all the case players (family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors,etc.) as much as possible

*DO NOT post asking if a particular person has been cleared

*DO NOT post judgemental posts about Mollie or anyone in her family as this is not victim friendly

*DO NOT post screenshots
 
zencompass said:
Dear PommyMommy,

Many thanks to you and @Otto for compiling this list! Excellent!


I would add 3 things that stand out for me:

. This was the second night that Mollie was all alone in the house
. There were no vehicles in the driveway (as there usually would be)
. Mollie's driver's license was at the house (wouldn't she need it to drive back from her Mom's?)
Click to expand...

I really can't take credit! Thank you for your contributions. :)

WHAT WE KNOW​
  • Mollie's jogging clothing and devices are missing
  • she has about 3 different routes and likes to mix them up
  • the dogs were in the basement
  • Dalton said the door was probably unlocked
  • she was seen running East on Pershing towards the Funeral Home
  • she was seen at the Funeral Home
  • she typically picks up the car at her mom's house before dark
  • she went for a run at 7:30
  • she usually runs for 45 minutes
  • LE reconstructed her run, relying on Fitbit data, cell phone pings and eyewitnesses
  • a digital signal led police to the Guernsey farm area
  • video was collected from various businesses
  • Mollie's mom was asked by FBI if Mollie was "in a home" at 9:45
  • she may have done homework (time unknown & unconfirmed)
  • Snapchat appeared to be indoors & taken that day, viewed at 10PM
  • Mollie was a creature of habit
  • Dalton sent her a text in the morning and she did not respond
  • This was the second night that Mollie was alone in the house
  • There were no vehicles in the driveway (as there usually would be)
  • Her driver's license and debit card were at the house
  • Usual evening routine: run, shower/eat or eat/shower, homework, bed
  • No signs of a struggle or forced entry
Thank you for the last one @Stippling.
 
I want to thank PommyMommy, Otto, Stippling and others for their contributions to the 'What we know' list. The facts listed have been reported in mainstream media.

I also greatly appreciate PommyMommy and others who have updated the 'Maps, Media and Timeline' thread. It is a great resource and serves as a bank of information if this case is ever prosecuted.

IA - MEDIA, MAPS & TIMELINES - NO DISCUSSION - Molly Tibbetts,20, Poweshiek County
 
Last edited:
The utility security camera going out......was it just one or several and/or all? If it was just one where was it pointing to view? Can the security people view online anytime? Can this be breached by others?
 
Bringing forward from the last thread some questions:

If she was attacked while wearing the Fitbit, would it show her increased heartbeat? Assumably...:(
Thinking more about this, any other vitals it monitors? I wonder if this potential record of biological response(s) can/will be used in court to demonstrate a timeline and attack, assuming it is recovered and this is the case?
 
Also bring some questions ahead:
Momma2cam said:
Respectfully snipped and bolded by me. Is it solid if the eye witnesses recall different clothing and one recalls her walking and the other jogging? Is it solid if they report often seeing her jog by, so one occasion may not be something that would even stand out? MOO.
Click to expand...
I guess I might have been better off using the word "corroborated". For one person to be mistaken on the time/day/person, that's understandable, but there are 3-4 who claim to have seen her depending on how reliable you find the report. So if they are all correct, then something happened either immediately after she texted her mom or after 9PM, depending on what the last siting we go with. If any of them or all of them are incorrect, then there is no way possible to even guess at what time *something weird happened*.
 
mrkyle said:
Sherry's was morning, probably dawn, this one dusk, but its hard to believe she wasn't taken during run, probably as the run veered towards outside of the town. Sherry was running outside of city limits on bypass road, the more rural the area she was in the more likely it was there, as less chance of being witnessed, ripping her out of a house with dogs and neighbors going un noticed not likely, and nothing damaged in the house.
Click to expand...

After reading Stephen Smith's very well thought out post last night I started to lean towards her being taken from the house. The only thing that bothered me about that scenario were the dogs. Having one myself I know how he would react and that made me question how it was possible for this to occur. It is actually possible and made me come up with a scenario that actually tied in another fact in this case that hasn't been resolved.

If someone knocked on her door and she answered more then likely the dogs would have been upstairs and free to move around. BJ stated that he did not believe that she was taken from the house because the dogs, especially the lab/pit mix would have intervened. That makes sense and he knows his dogs. BUT, if the person was armed and in that situation, dogs barking and perhaps moving in towards him it would be a chaotic situation. It would have momentarily distracted the person long enough for MT to send off a quick snapchat to her bf. Even if she was afraid to yell or scream on it, she may have sent a snap of her in attempt to gesture to him that something was wrong. At this point it would be the intruders priority to get the dogs under control and would probably tell her to put the dogs away or he would harm them. Even if she was scared out of her wits she would be concerned for the dogs safety and may have said ok and put them downstairs. They are no longer a threat.

If this actually occurred and she did in fact SC during the ruckus, and he in fact saw her do it he immediately took the phone away from her probably before she secured the dogs in the cellar.

I hope it didn't go down this way for her bf's sake. People here have opined that LE has asked DJ not to give out info that would have been on that SC. He seemed vague for sure. If it happened I hope he did just do a cursory look at the SC and not really pay attention because I would hate to have that picture burnt into his memory for the rest of his life. Whatever was on it clearly he did not think it was ominus because he didn't alert anyone. I do wonder though if he attempted to call her at anytime after that.

One thing I do know, no matter what happened I do not think it is suspicious that he couldn't remember what was said on it etc. Have you ever witnessed someone opening a SC. They hardly look at them half the time. I think when it's a frequent occurence between some people it's kind of like a text, you just look quick and think yeah whatever... to then ask that person to describe it would be just near impossible since there was only a cursory glance at it to begin with. Eyewitness evidence is not the most reliant in the best of circumstances, it would be even less so in a scenario described above.
 
Reply to @kkdj "
LE has not verified any of this to my knowledge. We learned because of others giving interviews."

Exactly. LE has not said much of anything after presumably receiving the information from her fit bit, social media, etc after submitting warrants and subpoenas for the data. I wouldn't rule out that the "confident timeline" and media trail don't show her jogging at all. In the video posted prior to her disappearance, she was possibly wearing a pink sports bra under her regular shirt in the gym (I am assuming at work). Maybe it is missing bc she had it on all day and never made it to her run. Who might benefit from staging that she disappeared on her run, thus making a stranger abduction a possibility? MOO.
 
margarita25 said:
Bringing forward from the last thread some questions:

If she was attacked while wearing the Fitbit, would it show her increased heartbeat? Assumably...:(
Thinking more about this, any other vitals it monitors? I wonder if this potential record of biological response(s) can/will be used in court to demonstrate a timeline and attack, assuming it is recovered and this is the case?
Click to expand...
Yes, and yes
 
i'm someone said:
I agree about the contacts, I am thinking she had some in throughout the timeline. Most people have disposables, if she does then the ones left at home are a moot point. If she didn't and was jogging blind, that leaves even more window for an abduction because it would be possible someone called out to her or got close enough to her that she didn't see them in time. MOO
Click to expand...
I know there's been a lot of speculation regarding Mollie's mother's comment about the contacts. Her mother said Mollie's glasses and contacts were still in the house. I think what she was addressing in that statement was whether Mollie left on her own accord and ran away, not that Mollie was walking around without any eyewear on. Most people have boxes of disposable contacts that they throw out at the end of the day (daily wear) and then change into their glasses for the evening. Some even wear contacts that you can leave in for a few days, but typically you get a six month supply at a time. So Mollie most likely has boxes of contacts and one set of glasses. When her mother said her contacts and glasses were left behind I believe she meant Mollie's one pair of glasses and her supply of contacts were still at the home. However, Mollie left the home wearing a pair of contacts.
 
I have a couple of questions.
Were there any vehicle fires, stolen vehicle reports or any suspicious structure fires around the times of her disappearance or in the days immediately after anywhere in the county or a neighboring county? Have there been any trash or dumpster fires?
 
FITBIT EXPERIMENT #2 - COMPLETE Auto Syncing FB with a phone on vs. off; and what does a PC show when your phone is powered off?

For this experiment summary, FB = Fitbit not Facebook... My experiment was done with the FB Alta, without Heart Rate and my home PC, all using my home wifi network.

Conclusion - In order for FB to auto sync and be up to date on a PC, the phone has to be powered on and you have to manually open the FB app and initiate the auto sync. FB does NOT auto sync or manually sync on a PC, whatsoever, if your phone is turned off. See different levels in the experiment below.

1. I opened the FB App on my phone and synced to be 100% up-to-date and see my stats + steps.

2. Next, I logged into my FB account on my PC to make sure both #'s/stats matched, and they did... it said lasted synced "now" then 1 minute ago, then 3 minutes, then it showed the actual time, an example 10:30 a.m.last synced.

3. I powered off my phone completely and started to walk around my house, played with my dog etc.

4. Came back to my PC to see if any #'s changed... NO, they did NOT, they did not auto sync on the PC... I also tried to manually sync using the FB website on the PC, there is no option to manually sync from a PC, but it showed the time it was last synced which was the same time I shut off my phone.

**For the following steps, I refreshed the FB website on my PC for each level. I didn't expect the screen to magically change on its own.

5. Level 1 - I simply powered on my phone, nothing else...FB no change, no sync on PC. **

6. Level 2 - After my phone powered on and the password screen popped up, FB no change, no sync.

7. Level 3 - Entered my phone password and allowed my phone to completely turn on and I waited an estimated 2 minutes. FB no change and no sync.

8. Level 4 - Opened the FB app on my phone, the auto sync was enacted and at the same time, I hit refresh on the PC... Everything synced up and I was back up to date.

End of Experiment. This experiment showed me, MT would have had to completely power on her phone and open the FB app to sync her FB stats after her phone was turned off or battery was depleted.

If her phone was turned off, the FB website would reveal the exact time this was done under "last time synced" and it wouldn't report any new stats until the phone was powered back on and the FB app was manually opened to sync with a PC + FB website.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
RavenCC2020 said:
If someone knocked on her door and she answered more then likely the dogs would have been upstairs and free to move around. BJ stated that he did not believe that she was taken from the house because the dogs, especially the lab/pit mix would have intervened. That makes sense and he knows his dogs. BUT, if the person was armed and in that situation, dogs barking and perhaps moving in towards him it would be a chaotic situation. It would have momentarily distracted the person long enough for MT to send off a quick snapchat to her bf. Even if she was afraid to yell or scream on it, she may have sent a snap of her in attempt to gesture to him that something was wrong.
Click to expand...
Snipped

I have to dispute the logic of this post.

First of all, the boyfriend didn't say anything to the effect that Mollie looked distraught in the SnapChat message that she had sent him.

Second, it isn't realistic to think that someone in dire peril would think to send a snapchat; it is far more likely that the person would be seeking an escape route.

We can assume that if Mollie was taken from the home by force, then the abduction occurred while the dogs were still in the basement or after they had been put back in the basement at a later time.
 
Stippling said:
I have a couple of questions.
Were there any vehicle fires, stolen vehicle reports or any suspicious structure fires around the times of her disappearance or in the days immediately after anywhere in the county or a neighboring county? Have there been any trash or dumpster fires?
Click to expand...
Trash fires are a daily occurrence. In fact I noticed in one of my videos from yesterday you can see smoke rising off in the distance.
 
margarita25 said:
Bringing forward from the last thread some questions:

If she was attacked while wearing the Fitbit, would it show her increased heartbeat? Assumably...:(
Thinking more about this, any other vitals it monitors? I wonder if this potential record of biological response(s) can/will be used in court to demonstrate a timeline and attack, assuming it is recovered and this is the case?
Click to expand...
Mine (Alta HR) only monitors my heart rate and it has been known to buzz at me a couple of times in the middle of the night when my heart rate spiked from about 55 to 150. Here’s a SS of the app page.

F932C889-BEF9-4193-92BA-3D1F312BDAD4.png 2F84C0A4-EE92-49B5-A927-6D459666359B.png
 
Mom24 said:
I know there's been a lot of speculation regarding Mollie's mother's comment about the contacts. Her mother said Mollie's glasses and contacts were still in the house. I think what she was addressing in that statement was whether Mollie left on her own accord and ran away, not that Mollie was walking around without any eyewear on. Most people have boxes of disposable contacts that they throw out at the end of the day (daily wear) and then change into their glasses for the evening. Some even wear contacts that you can leave in for a few days, but typically you get a six month supply at a time. So Mollie most likely has boxes of contacts and one set of glasses. When her mother said her contacts and glasses were left behind I believe she meant Mollie's one pair of glasses and her supply of contacts were still at the home. However, Mollie left the home wearing a pair of contacts.
Click to expand...

It's one of those things they haven't expounded upon. It's hard to know what kind of significance there is since we don't know when she would have taken out the contacts and put on glasses. But if she wasn't wearing either, that would have implications if we go down the abduction rabbit hole. If she was wearing some when she left/went, the fact that her glasses and contacts were still at home is sort of less of a glaring detail. The Mom could have meant that Mollie didn't pack for a voluntary disappearance, and only had a few things with her, so the logical thing would be to move that theory down the list. Everyone was pretty defensive in the early interviews, which is understandable. MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 238 more.
Total: 4,067 (members: 239, guests: 3,828)

Online statistics

Members online
239
Guests online
3,828
Total visitors
4,067
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,706
Messages
17,957,823
Members
228,591
Latest member
44Tejas1821
Back
Top