Crimeatorium
Part 8: The State of Iowa vs Cristhian Bahena Rivera | The Murder of Mollie Tibbetts
Tue, 14 Jan 2025
Part 8: Prosecution rebuttal witness and closing argument.Before we begin, I want to take a moment to reflect on the life of Mollie Tibbetts, a young woman whose light touched everyone she met. Mollie Cecelia Tibbetts was born on May 8, 1998, in San Francisco, California, and raised in both San Francisco and Brooklyn, Iowa. She graduated from BGM High School in 2017 and was pursuing a degree in psychology at the University of Iowa, driven by her dream of becoming a child psychologist to help children struggling with mental health issues.Mollie loved life, and it showed in everything she did. She excelled in writing and speech, sharing her thoughts on complex topics like mental health and self-esteem. She made friends everywhere she went, and children adored her. She worked at a summer camp where her laughter and warmth left a lasting impression. She was a runner, a dancer, an actor, and a singer. But above all, Mollie was a young woman filled with kindness, ambition, and an undeniable joy for life.In July 2018, Mollie disappeared while on an evening jog near her hometown of Brooklyn, Iowa, sparking a massive search effort that united the community and drew nationwide attention. Sadly, her body was discovered weeks later.This episode covers the court trial in full, edited for length and clarity.Contact:[email protected] Blog for updates and insights:https://crimeatorium.com/blogSupport:Donations are appreciated, if you would like to help support the show, use the link below and buy me a burrito and a Diet Pepsi:http://Ko-fi.com/crimeatoriumFor $3 a month, you can support this show on Patreon, in return you will receive ad free, early, and bonus episodeshttps://www.patreon.com/crimeatoriumIf you like the podcast, please share it on social media and with friends, and take a minute to leave a review for Crimeatorium on Spotify, Podchaser or Apple Podcasts.https://www.crimeatorium.com/rate/Music:im Kulig (timkulig.com)Titles: Crimeatorium IntroLicensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0997280/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1Thank you for listening!Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/crimeatorium9009/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
We are in the presence of the jury. Mr. Behema is present along with the attorneys of record. When we were last here, the defense had rested. Mr. Brown, does the state have any rebuttal?
Judge, we have one short rebuttal witness, Nick Wilson.
Mr. Wilson, good morning. Good morning. Can you please state your name for the record? Nick Wilson. And are you employed? Yes. Where do you work? Jasper Construction. Does your work take you on the road? Yes, it does. Mr. Wilson, do you know Dalton Jack? Yes, I do. How long have you known him? Five years. And did Dalton Jack ever work for Jasper Construction? Yes, he did.
And did he work in the summer of 2018? Was he working for Jasper Construction? Yes, he was. And was he a good worker? Very good. Showed up on time? Yes. Never had any real problems with him? Nope.
Did you know Dalton Jack outside of work with Jasper Construction? Just at hotel, you know, when hanging out with him, yeah, just a little bit. Not personally, personally, but yes.
You're a little older than him, is that correct? Correct. All right, I want to direct your attention, Mr. Wilson, back to the week that includes Wednesday, July 18th of 2018. Do you recall that week? Yes, I do. Was that the week that Molly Tibbetts went missing? Yes. Is that why you can remember that week a little bit better than others? Is that a yes? Yes, sorry.
What job were you working the week that included July 18th of 2018?
Well, that Monday, we started on a job we had to do. It was in Amana. It was probably five minutes east of Williamsburg. And then that following Tuesday, we were up in...
Dubuque and that's when we started staying in the hotel and we got in Dubuque at six o'clock that Wednesday I mean that Tuesday and worked till five o'clock and then that Tuesday we would go get groceries for grilling and everything like that then Wednesday hang on just a second you're getting just a bit ahead of me okay you let's talk about that work week that includes July 18th so two days before
On July 16th of 2018, was your crew working in Iowa County? Yes. You said near the Amana colonies? Yes. And did Dalton Jack, was he included on that crew?
Yes, he was. All right. Was that just a one-day job? No, it was a job I was doing in the meantime while crews were doing removals on the Dubuque job. So we had to wait for them to do their removals. And then once they had their removals done, we were going up there to form up under, to report. Okay.
So one day in Iowa County? Yes, Monday. And then did your crew that included Dalton Jack then move to Dubuque? Yes. And what was the job there? Specifically, where was it located? On Highway 61, right before going over into Wisconsin. Explain the type of work that you do on bridges like the one that goes over Highway 61 near Dubuque.
Well, we would break all the way through the bridge deck, and they have joints in the bridge that allow the bridge to move, and we had to replace those joints. So we'd bust them out, we'd reform up underneath of it, place a new joint in there, and then pour concrete all around the joint to hold it in place.
On Tuesday, July 17th, Wednesday, July 18th, and Thursday, July 19th, was Dalton Jack working with you in the city of Dubuque on the job you just described? Yes, he was. Did I ask you to go back and look at employment? pay sheets to verify hours and the presence of other crew members? Yes, you did. Did that help refresh your memory? Yes, it did. Let's talk about Wednesday, July 18th of 2018.
Do you remember that particular day? Yes, I do. Also, that week is particularly memorable to you for another reason. No. Okay. Is it the week that Molly Tibbetts went missing? Yes. Okay. So does that help you remember? Yes, it does, yes. I may have already asked you that.
Now, going back to Wednesday, July 18th of 2018, was Dalton Jack on the crew that was working in Dubuque on the bridge that crossed the river? Yes, he was. And on Wednesday of July 18th of 2018, what were Dalton Jack's hours?
Objection. Calling for hearsay.
Overruled. Witness may answer.
5.30 a.m. to 7 p.m. This crew that you're working, are you in a supervisory position? Yes. Do you log their hours for them, the men on your crew? Yes, I do. They don't have anything to do with that themselves? No, they do not. Do you create a timesheet that... reflects the hours that each crew member worked? Yes, I do. And how long did Dalton Jack work specifically on July 18th of 2018?
12.5 hours. He worked till 7 p.m.? Correct. Were you and the other crew members staying at a motel near Dubuque? Yes, it was a Days Inn in Dubuque. And how far was the Days Inn from the job site that you described to us? 10 minutes. And did you and your crew, including Dalton Jack, go anywhere after work at 7 p.m. on July 18th of 2018? No, we did not. Did you go back to the hotel? Yes. All right.
And did Dalton Jack go with you? Yes, he did. Did you see him at the Days Inn after 7 p.m. on July 18th of 2018? Yes, I did. So what was the plan then after work for July 18th of 2018 for you and your crew?
We usually go back to the hotel, get showered up, then bring our food out. We all have one grill and we all just grill at the same grill and have a couple beers, play bags, and then usually go to bed at a decent time so we can get up and work a good day tomorrow.
Did you do that on July 18th of 2018? Yes. And was Dalton Jack present for the grilling? Yes. And did he play bags? He did. Did you ever see him go back to his room? Do you ever recall that? No. On July 19th of 2018, what was the plan for the workday?
Well, we started at 5.30 that day. We knew rain was coming, so we were just trying to put in a good day before the rain hit. So we worked through lunch, and we stopped at 2 o'clock that day. And after that, we called it. We waited out waiting for about half an hour, and then we'll call the day.
And then we went back to the hotel, and we stay at the hotel because we're going to work the next Friday anyways.
And was Dalton Jack present for the workday on Thursday, July 19th of 2018? Yes, he was. As far as you know, was he there the entire time from 5.30 a.m. to 2 p.m.? Yes. By the way, did he have a specific job on your crew? He would just be considered a laborer. Did you notice anything unusual with Dalton Jack's demeanor, how he was acting on July 19th of 2018? Yes.
And can you describe that, please? He was acting kind of down, not really speaking with the group and just kind of sad. And did he ever express to you what was causing him to be sad? Later on that day, yes, he did. What did he say? He told me that he hadn't spoke to Molly in 18 hours and he was getting worried and nobody had heard from her, none of the friends he'd contacted.
And he was going to maybe leave that night to go put a missing person report at the 24-hour mark and told me that he might not be at work the next Friday. Was that okay with you? Yes, it was. Were you worried for him? Yes, I was.
And did Dalton Jack come to work then on Friday, July 20th of 2018? No, he did not. To your knowledge, did he go back to Brooklyn? Yes.
Did you and the rest of the crew finish out your job on Friday? The rest of the crew did. I left a little early to go help search. Go help search for who? For Molly. And when did you do that? I did that probably 9 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I called my boss, asked him if I could leave and come help because he has property in Brooklyn, farm, ground, and everything, and he said that was fine.
And did you drive back to Brooklyn? Yes.
Is it about a, from the bridge back to Brooklyn, is it about two, a little over two hours? Yes. And whenever I say that, a two-hour drive or a little more? Yep.
All right. That's all I have.
Thank you. Defense may cross-examine.
Sir, you were in Brooklyn helping with the search. Is that right?
Correct.
I haven't seen any records of you being interviewed. Do you recall if you were ever interviewed originally?
I was just interviewed by the FBI agent. I do not remember. He called me. I didn't get interviewed in person, but it was a cell phone call.
All right. So you were called by an FBI agent. Is that correct?
Yep.
How long did that call last?
It lasted maybe a matter of three minutes, maybe.
What was the call regarding?
Just Dalton's whereabouts.
Now, you were not originally subpoenaed as a witness to testify at this trial. Is that correct? Correct.
It's not relevant as to when we call him. Overruled.
You were not subpoenaed, is that right?
Correct.
When were you contacted about testifying at this trial?
Actually a couple weeks beforehand by a sheriff.
All right, and what was your understanding of the reason for the call?
To give Dalton an alibi, technically, yes.
So you were called by the sheriff to give Dalton an alibi, is that right?
Well, yeah, I was the only witness there for him, pretty much, other than the crew.
Were you ever asked to produce these records that you relied on?
Later on, yes.
So just recently, is that right?
I offered to bring them beforehand, but then he asked me to bring them once, yes, later on.
All right. So originally when this investigation was going on in 2018, were you ever asked to produce records? No. So the records that you've relied on, you just looked at in the last couple of weeks, is that right?
Correct.
Sir, there's been some talk about you drinking most of the day that you were rained out on Thursday, July 19th of 2018. You recall drinking that day? Yes. And specifically, it was asked if you needed to have a ride to the store because you were so intoxicated.
It's not correct. I had a company vehicle, and I was following the law.
Which is what?
Which is you cannot drink and drive.
So you asked for someone else's assistance on July 19th to get to the store, is that right?
Correct.
Specifically, who was that?
Dalton Jack.
And that was because you were not in a condition to drive, is that correct?
That's because I would not be able to pass a breathalyzer, correct.
Now, it's customary for crews to drink after a long day of work, isn't that right?
Correct.
So, pretty much any day that you are working, you are also consuming alcohol later on that night, is that right?
No.
Most nights?
No.
Well, let's talk about Wednesday, July 18th of 2018. You said that you drank a couple of beers that night, isn't that right?
Correct.
If Dalton Jack originally said to law enforcement that he showered that night and watched rush hour one in his room, would you disagree with that statement?
She's asking this witness to comment on another witness's credibility.
No, a witness can answer if he knows.
Well, I do not recall.
So you're not sure if he was in his room? it it's hard to remember it was three years ago you just testified that you were out playing yard games and and grilling isn't that right correct and that dalton was there correct but you're telling us that if dalton said that he actually showered and watched rush hour one in his room that you're not sure if that happened
No. How would I be sure if he was in his room watching Rush Hour? He could have done that during the shower, had it on, played it, then came outside.
Dalton Jack was interviewed several times when this originally happened. You knew that, is that right? Correct. In his recollection, within days of this happening, you'd agree that would be better than yours three years later?
Correct.
Workers at your company routinely share rooms, isn't that right?
Correct.
And in this case, are you aware that Dalton Jack was sharing a room with Brandon Gordy?
Yes.
Now, Brandon Gordy would be a better person to say where Dalton Jack was in the evening hours of July 18th of 2018. Isn't that right?
We don't have Jack's cause for speculation as to what Brandon Gordy may have said or seen or heard. Sustained.
You'd agree with me that you go to sleep early so that you can start the day early. Isn't that right?
Yes.
And... Brandon Gordy would be the person that is in the room with Dalton Jack that night?
Yes.
You were aware that Molly Tibbetts and Dalton Jack were having problems with their relationship, isn't that right?
Objections exceeds the scope of direct.
Calls for speculation.
Overruled. The witness may answer if he knows.
Not at the time, no.
You found out after the fact?
I found out during the trial.
No further questions.
Mr. Brown, anything else to this witness? No. Mr. Brown, on behalf of the state of Iowa, you may proceed.
Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court. Counsel. Mr. and Ms. Freese. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. This is a case that you have heard over the last few days here in this courtroom. You've heard a case and evidence about a young woman who went for a run on July 18th of 2018 and she never came home. Her life was brutally taken by the defendant on July 18th of 2018.
This is Molly Tibbetts, 20 years old, just starting out her adult life. Molly Tibbetts went for a run. She'd gone for a run most days. Sometimes she would go a short distance, sometimes she would go a little bit longer. But on July 18th of 2018, she went for that run that was a little bit longer. She was confronted by this man. She crossed paths with him and it ended her life.
She was attacked brutally by him. She was stabbed repeatedly by him. Can you imagine what that was like for her? Nine to 12 times, She was stabbed. Her clothing was removed. She was dumped into a cornfield, discarded under a pile of corn. She was covered with those leaves, and she was left. Five weeks, Molly's body laid in that cornfield. And you know who knew about that? One man. One man knew.
and he is here. His name is Christian Bahena Rivera. The evidence in this case shows that the defendant and only the defendant murdered Molly Tibbetts. All of the credible evidence in this case, all of it, that there weren't two other guys That's a figment of his imagination. All of the credible evidence in this case, all of it points at him. All of it.
Judges read you instructions as to what the charge of murder in the first degree is. There are four elements, four things that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what we have to show. What those four elements are, what the evidence is in this case that proves that Christian Bahena-Rivera is the man who murdered Molly Tibbetts and murdered her in the first degree.
That's the evidence that we're going to talk about, the evidence that you've heard over the last few days here in this courtroom. That's what we're going to talk about here. But make no bones about it, this is what it is. This is what murder in the first degree is. This is the law. The state is required to prove each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Are you firmly convinced whenever you look at this evidence? That's the question before you. Elements two, three, and four, there is really no doubt about. All right, we'll talk about them as we go through this evidence more towards the end of my presentation here, but we have to prove them. We have to prove that Molly Tibbetts died as a result of being stabbed.
Of course we have that evidence here. We have to prove two states of mind of the defendant, that the defendant acted with what's called malice of forethought. The judge has given you that definition. We'll talk about that just a bit later.
And then the fourth element that we have to prove is that the defendant willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and with specific intent, he acted with that specific intent to kill Molly Tibbetts. As this evidence has come in, as you have seen it, as you have heard it,
There really is no dispute with these three elements that whoever killed Molly Tibbetts acted with malice of forethought and acted with those other states of mind in element number four. Okay? You follow me? Two through four. We're going to talk here a bit about element number one, which is really what we're going to spend most of our time talking about here this morning.
And that first element is what I refer to as the identification element. that on or about the 18th day of July of 2018, the defendant stabbed Molly Tibbetts. That's what the evidence that we're going to talk about here. Was it the defendant? Was it Christian Bahena Rivera? Was it him? The basic story of what occurred that day, will focus on this particular element.
But what is the basic story of what happened on July 18th of 2018? What do we know from the evidence here, from the witnesses who have testified and come forward and taken the oath and sat in the witness chair and told you what happened? Molly Tibbetts was 20 years old. She was a University of Iowa student.
She had just finished her freshman year at the University of Iowa and she had come home for the summer. She worked at a preschool at the hospital in Grinnell. She had a boyfriend named Dalton and she was working at the job at Grinnell and she was enjoying her summer.
She lived at a house part of the time at 622 West Des Moines in Brooklyn where Dalton lived with his brother Blake and his fiancee at the time, Allie. They lived at that house. Molly would frequent the house. Sometimes she would stay there. Sometimes she would stay with her mom. That's what the evidence is in this case. Molly then went for a run. Like she did many times.
Molly went for a run on July 18th of 2018 at about a little bit before 7.45 p.m. You've heard testimony from people who knew her that said she liked to run. In the evening, that was her preferred time to go out for a run. We've also seen through other witnesses in this case, and they've talked about what her routes were. Sometimes she would run around town. Sometimes she would run out on 385th.
That's what she would do, right? She was a runner. She'd run cross country in high school and track, and this was one of the things that she enjoyed doing. It was on that night, on that evening of July 18th of 2018, that she ran across the defendant in his chrome mirrored, chrome handled, spoked, tired Malibu. And the evidence is in this case is that he stabbed her to death. Let's talk about that.
This is what the issue here is. This is what this evidence will be focused on. Who killed Molly Tibbetts? Who stabbed her? Who killed Molly Tibbetts? Let's look at that evidence. First of all, Well, let me tell you this before I get into this. Really, there's three components to the proof that we have here in this case.
One is the surveillance video from Logan Collins' residence that was collected by DCI agents. that puts Christian Bahena-Rivera, the defendant, in the area, also puts Molly in the area at the same time. So that's one component, that video. That's what broke this case open. That's what broke this case. That's what ID'd, began to ID the defendant.
So we have the video, the surveillance video from Logan Collins' residence. Right, the second thing is, whenever the defendant was interviewed, he confessed. he told Pamela Romero what he did, at least those parts that he claimed that he could remember. And then the third component to this case is the physical evidence.
The blood of Molly Tibbetts is found in the trunk of the black Chevy Malibu that the defendant was driving, that he owned, that he operated, that Ehrlich Lorenzana bought for him. He's directly connected, really exclusively, to the black Chevy Malibu.
So let's look first
at the video evidence that we have here. The video IDs him. He's confessed. Sometimes I get ahead of myself. The DNA and the blood puts him there. Molly's location and evidence surrounding her also corroborate the identification of the defendant because of the way in which she was found under the corn stalks, which he described without ever going back there with the officers later.
So we have these components to the case, all of which, when you put them together, knit together a coherent story and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. So let's look first at... The video evidence. Let's review that and let's look about that. That's the first component I talked about, right?
The video evidence that puts Molly and the defendant together in the same area. This is an enhanced video that we have. Play it again. There she goes. Now, we're looking at the video. Can we say that's her, that's Molly Tibbetts, just by looking at it? Of course not. We have to look at all the evidence in the case collectively.
The defendant puts her there for sure, but that's Molly Tibbetts that's running on that video. So we now have her in the area. What time was that? On the video stamp of the video from Logan Collins' house, it was at 7.45 p.m., What do we see next within 30 seconds of Molly passing through the video of what we just saw? We see that car. Look closely at this picture. We see it more than once.
We have two other views of it. Actually, we have a fourth view of it, but we have these views here. This is Logan Collins actually on the left standing in his yard. You can see the black Malibu on the left side, and you certainly can see it here on the right whenever it passes by again. So between the hours of 7.45 p.m.
and 8.07 on the video, we see this Malibu pass through several times as Molly is on her run, all right? This is the video that broke this case open. Agent Reeson was talking to you. So did Matt George yesterday. He was one of the team of DCI agents that was working on this case. And he and Agent Reeson were looking at it.
I think it was Agent Reeson that looked away quickly and Matt George saw the shadow of the jogger go by. But that's what broke this case open. Because remember before this. What have the agents and the officers been doing? They've been spending several weeks trying to figure out what happened to her. They've been spending several weeks trying to find her. They can't find her.
The corn is overhead tall in the fields. They're up against a pretty decent challenge. Law enforcement was here to find this young woman. They've been looking. They've been talking to other people, which we will talk about here in just a few minutes. But they've been trying to figure out where she went, what she did.
They had a little bit of help from the FBI, from Kevin Horan, in trying to locate an area to even search. But think about what they were up against. This is a young woman who really didn't have many enemies, if any. I'm not sure there's any testimony that Molly was disliked by anyone. She's a sweet young woman, right? She's what they called a low-risk victim.
No drug history, no domestic violence, nothing of that nature, right? This was a tough one to crack, to figure out. Who was this? Who would do this to her, right? They looked at other people. But this video, when they had it, aha, okay? A clue came in. A lead came in.
Now they had a vehicle that they could associate with the area where Molly would normally run and within very close proximity to when she passed through. This was the car. And this car belonged to Christian Bahena-Rivera, the defendant. That's what got them there. I want to break for just a second. And talk about, just briefly, this man's testimony yesterday. Right?
All of a sudden now we have these two men, right? He gets up and gives us this different version of what happened. You know what the problem is with it?
It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't fit.
The video evidence here refutes his testimony. he said that he and two men passed her running going into town right out on 385th they were going into town whenever she was running that's when he said they saw her the video shows the defendant on east des moines seconds after she passes through, not out on the county road. Whoops, he didn't think about that, right?
We've got him in town in his vehicle whenever she passes by within 30 seconds. Think about that. Right after she passes by, there is no way he could have passed her on the outskirts of town and seen her for the first time. He saw her for the first time whenever he saw her in town. That's what the video shows. He cannot be two places at once. It doesn't work. It doesn't work.
Whenever he gets up on the stand and whenever he testifies and gives you this new story, these additional facts that he never told police, you can judge that the same as you do any other witness. You can scrutinize it. You can look at other evidence that we have in the case. And you know what it doesn't fit with? It doesn't fit with that video.
Continuing about the video what happened before before they went out to the farm to talk to him so they had the video Officers were looking at it agents recent and George they passed that along to other officers in the case, right? They're trying to figure out they don't know whenever they see that video and see that car with those distinctive features with the chrome mirror and
with the chrome handles and the spoke wheels, they don't know that it belongs to Christian Bahena-Rivera. They don't know that. They can't associate it. There's black Malibus. It's a common vehicle. So they're looking. They have a lead, and they're chasing it, and they're trying to figure out who is this person that is passing by in the area where Molly Tibbetts is believed to be running.
Who is it? We gotta figure this out. Who is this person that keeps going by, right, multiple times between 746 and 807? Who is this person? We gotta try to figure this out. Well, they did. Steve Kinney, who's a police officer, is a deputy sheriff with the Poweshiek County Sheriff's Office, is driving August 14th, right?
He's driving after this video has been seen, August 16th, I believe, is driving this video, and whenever he knows the information, he knows what the car looks like, and you know what he sees? He sees this vehicle. This is a picture taken from the night that he encountered the defendant in Malcolm.
Remember, Malcolm is a town that is just north of I-80 in Poweshiek County, and Steve Kivy that evening sees this vehicle, and it's like zeroed in on it. Why? Because it has distinctive features. It has the chrome mirrors, chrome handles, the spoked wheels, but it was mainly those chrome mirrors that drew his attention, and it was black.
And so Officer Deputy Kivy was ahead of the Malibu whenever he pulled off of the road and then let it pass, and then followed it, got to an alleyway, used an interpreter, and he found this vehicle with those features and who was driving. The defendant, by himself, alone. Had to use a resident there who spoke Spanish to try to communicate with him. Asked him a few questions, denied anything.
First story, by the way, that the defendant tells about anything about Molly Tibbetts when he's asked, denies. Denies, denies. Doesn't know anything about her. So now, police have A potential suspect in this man that you see here on the right is the same guy that's sitting here in the courtroom.
The defendant admits he's the sole person who uses the Malibu and then a plan is put together in order to try to take him in or bring him in and interview him to try to gain some information. The police still don't know. Is he connected? Maybe. His car's in the area. Now we know who it is. We need to talk to him. They're going to follow the evidence. They're going to follow the lead.
So that's what they do. So the video here proves what? It proves the identity of the defendant, the vehicle that he's in, he later admits that it was his car, and his proximity to Molly Tibbetts. So the video and the admissions of the defendant place him in Brooklyn within seconds of Molly's sighting that we saw on the video. So why is that important? It is important because
He is in the area within seconds. It fits with the evidence in this case. It fits with him having the opportunity to see her, to notice her. You can look at the picture of Molly Tibbetts. She is a cute 20-year-old young woman. He likes her. He sees her. She's in tight clothing as she's jogging. She's in a jogging bra and spandex-type shorts as she's jogging down the road.
That's what got his attention. That should be patently obvious. So the video, the first component that puts these two people, that puts the defendant together with Molly Tibbetts, is the video. It's really irrefutable.
And it is the thing, the piece of evidence, the lead that the police followed that broke this case and led them to more evidence and more evidence that the defendant was the one who committed Molly Tibbetts' murder. So component number one. The second component... to this is the interview of the defendant. Several days passed, there was a weekend in between. and officers made a plan.
They got some help from federal partners in Homeland Security. They got other officers from DCI, and the plan was to go out to Yerby Farms and make an attempt to not only talk to the defendant, but talk to anybody else or make contact with anyone else who may have information or be a witness in this case, anybody that they can talk to. So they did. On August 20th, they found the defendant working.
If you recall what the evidence is in the case is that he had driven, they also wanted the black Malibu, I would tell you. That's what the evidence is here too. He was driving another car on August 20th, a Nissan Altima that he had driven. He was also in another building from where the officers were. So they had to find him. It didn't take long and they did locate him.
so they get the the cars they also talked to him to get consent to bring the Malibu in his consent was given and the Malibu was brought into the Sheriff's Office to be examined by crime scene team so but what they did then is they then take him to the Sheriff's Office all right so we've already had one story one version out of the defendant right whenever Steve Kivy encountered him on
or in the alley up in Malcolm just a few days before, he denied any knowledge of Molly Tibbetts, denied knowing anything about it other than seeing it on the news and knowing that she was missing. This was obviously a very high-profile matter and a very high-profile investigation, and so he claims to have known about it. All right, so then what do we have?
We now have the defendant's what eventually becomes a confession. Confessions in Iowa need to be corroborated in order to be used as evidence. This confession is corroborated in many ways. So let's look at the defendant's statements to the police. How did it set up? Poweshiek County had used Pamela Romero because she was a native Spanish speaker. She was a police officer at the time in Iowa City.
She had prior law enforcement experience with the West Liberty Police Department here in Iowa. She was a native of Mexico. She came here when she was a young girl, when she was 10, immigrated here with her family, and moved to West Liberty. She ended up getting an interest in law enforcement, and she started that career with both West Liberty and with Iowa City.
And she was an Iowa City police officer at the time that she was utilized in this case. If you recall, she had been utilized about a month before to help with other Spanish speakers, to help interpret. By the way, something that Officer Romero did quite often was to help interpret, officer.
So she came to Poweshiek County back in July of 2018 to help with that and then she came back to then be the person who could talk to the defendant. And doesn't that make sense to have somebody like her? Why not have her? Does she have a ton of experience in law enforcement? No. But she speaks the same language as the defendant. She's a native speaker. She can have a conversation with him.
The defendant himself told you yesterday he had no problems understanding her, understanding the questions. There was no confusion. It's the same thing that Officer Romero told you. Whenever they were speaking, it was conversational, and they were able to understand each other. But what happens now in a case, though, whenever we have two native Spanish speakers talking on a video?
We would love to show you that, to play it, but we can't. I mean, we would need 12. really native Spanish speakers to come in to be able to understand it. So we have to rely on what Pamela Romero tells us the questions and answers were. You saw her on the stand. She's very well put together. She's soft spoken. She is pleasant. She was the same exact way with the defendant.
She will tell you what the conversation is that she had with the defendant while they were at the Poweshiek County Sheriff's Office. What statements were made and what was said during the interview. So initially, What do we get? We get the same story that the defendant had told Officer or Deputy Kivy in Malcolm days before. He didn't know anything about Molly Tibbetts' disappearance.
Knew that she was missing, had seen posters and flyers, had seen things of that nature, and had seen that in a store. I think he even said that he had maybe come into contact or had seen Dalton, the boyfriend of Molly. But what does he eventually end up telling the officers? They go through the interview, right? So it's deny.
Then Officer Romero shows the defendant photos of things that we saw similarly in the videos that show the car. He now knows what? Okay, now my car's in the area. Uh-oh. So how am I gonna try to explain that one? All right, so he sees his vehicle in the area. She shows him several photos of it, and then he admits, right? He's now confronted with some evidence that puts him in the area.
Now his story changes, right? It changes to, okay, yeah, I saw her, and she was jogging. And, you know, he even makes a comment about her attractiveness. I think there's some dispute as to whether or not she said hot or not. Hot, pretty, whatever it is.
right he is talking to now talking to pamela romero officer romero about the way that molly tibbets appears all right story two okay first one was to deny second one now when shown evidence that his car is in the area he now moves to Okay, I saw her. Yeah, I did. That's my car. She's in the area. And he tells the officer. There's several points here.
As we move through the interview with him, it starts out again with denial. The second one is, I saw her in the area. Then it moves to what whenever we get to the field? Lots, he confesses to the murder. is what he does, to the confrontation, to taking her, to being the only one, to taking her to the field, to her being bloody and putting her in the corn. That's what he does.
So he admits to observing her and indicates she's attractive. So then what does he then start to tell Officer Romero? He tells her during this interview with her that he admits... that whenever he encountered Molly out on 385th, out on the county road, that she didn't want anything to do with him. She rebuked him, right? Molly threatened to call the police, right? He did not want that, right?
What does that do to him?
Makes him angry, right?
He admits that. He admits that he became angry. Whenever he gets out of his car, he like jogs along with her. He talks to her about that or talks to Officer Romero about that. Molly then says, I'm going to call the police. I'm going to call the cops. This makes him mad. She even slaps him. He admits that she slaps him at one point.
So there's a physical confrontation between Molly Tibbetts and the defendant by his own admission. out on 385th, and he becomes angry. A very simple motive in the case to do someone harm. What does he admit next after this confrontation on the road? He then admits that Molly is in the trunk of the Malibu, and he also admits that he is alone, and he also admits that Molly's earbuds are on his lap.
Those are earbuds that Dalton Jack purchased for her as a gift, right? He then admits to that, right? He puts her in the trunk. He starts driving down the road. We have corroboration of that also. We'll talk about here in just a second. But that's what he says happened, right? He's confronted this girl. He became angry. She's in his trunk. He's telling us that. There's no other two guys.
There's nobody else. He doesn't put anybody else in the vehicle. He had every chance to do that. He was asked multiple times, tell us more, help us more. These officers who could protect him, right? He didn't do it, right? He didn't tell them. Instead, she's in the trunk. We know he's headed south. He admits that he's alone. He admits the earbuds are there. He admits to going to the cornfield.
He admits taking Molly into the corn and he admits covering Molly with corn stalks and he discarded her and he left her in the corn after covering her with these corn stalks. He was in one of the most remote parts of Poweshiek County. And even though there is a cutout that goes back into the corn where she was found, she's over 400 feet, almost 500 feet into that cornfield.
She is unfindable other than by the defendant. So, this statement that he gave to Pamela Romero, Officer Romero. He was given multiple, multiple opportunities to tell more. particularly during the end of that conversation that they were having near the cornfield in the car whenever Pamela Romero runs him through the events and tries to get more information out of him. How are we here?
How did we end up here? Tell us more. Does the defendant ever admit to stabbing her? He says that he blacked out. He didn't black out. He just doesn't tell her. But he told her everything about the confrontation, about how he got to the cornfield, about how she was covered. And he tells her on two occasions in the car, I brought you here. More or less, what more do you want me to tell you?
I brought you here. And he did. He led them directly to Molly Tibbetts. These cops had been searching for her for weeks. He goes right there. He tells Pamela Romero, I did it, didn't I? He claims not to remember, claims that he blacked out. He didn't black out. He tells about the confrontation. He tells about Molly being bloody in the trunk, about hauling her out to the corn, about covering her.
He's telling the officer that he did it. He's confessing. He's telling the officers in telling them those statements, I killed Molly Tibbetts. That's what he's saying. That's what the statements all point to. We also have, as far as corroboration of this confession, This is a state's exhibit that we used with FBI agent Kevin Moran, who we brought here from Dayton, Ohio.
Agent Moran is a cell phone expert, an analyst with the FBI. He's a special agent. He's a law enforcement officer that has a particular expertise in working on the CAS team with FBI. So we put officer or agent Kevin Moran on the stand. And what he does, what does this help with? All right.
We know that, for instance, Christina Stewart saw Molly jogging on the road, jogging away from her, right about the same time that the video puts Christian Rivera and Molly in the area. But that's a human. That's a person that's giving you their views. You know, that's what she testified to. There's really no reason to doubt it.
But this type of evidence that Agent Horan can offer is electronic evidence, right, not subject to bias, not subject to impressions. And he helps us establish a timeline with regard to Molly Tibbetts. He helps us also establish two different search areas that also help with the investigation. He knows that Molly Tibbetts was taken at about 8.30 p.m.
shortly before because she ends up, by his calculation, driving directly south just after that between 60 and 70 miles an hour. So we know that's when she was taken. That is consistent with and in conformity with
The evidence that we see in the video with Christian Rivera's car being in the area with Molly Tibbetts, it also supports what the defendant is saying at the sheriff's office whenever he's interviewed that he took her out on 385th. All of the electronic evidence is matching up to help establish this timeline. It's the same location as the defendant states to Romero out on 385th.
And also, whenever he takes them to the cornfield that is down on 460th and southeast of Poweshiek County, it lines up with that as well. Actually, if you look at his search area, that is the box on the bottom of this exhibit, it puts the area where Molly was found is on the far eastern edge of that. So it all matches up. It is all consistent.
it's the same location that the defendant took the officers to in august on august 21st of 2018. it matches and it's electronic evidence it's not subject to bias this all fits this confession of the defendant identifies and proves that the defendant and only the defendant murdered Molly Tibbetts. All right? So component one is the video and all the information we've already talked about.
Component two is the confession of the defendant where he says he is solely responsible for Molly Tibbetts' death. Let's move to some physical evidence here. The DNA that we have in the case. By the way, the DNA the defendant doesn't know about, right, at the time that he's first interviewed. This is information that came in later. But DNA proves
that Molly Tibbetts had direct contact while bleeding with the Malibu that is owned and solely operated by the defendant. Right? That's what we have. How Molly was found in the cornfield, the physical evidence that we have there, it lines up with how the defendant said that she would be found and her clothing in the field. We'll talk about that here in just a second.
So let's talk about what we have here with regard to the DNA. All right, these are the two pictures. There's others of the car that are in, but these two photos that are here that are in the case as exhibits show that the tag on the Malibu, same tag that Officer Kivy stopped, as well as the blood spot here that you see on the rubber seal,
that the swab was taken from that was identified solely as Molly Tibbetts' blood. So we have that. And there's another blood spot that's in the trunk. If you were to stand at the trunk and open the door and look inside, it's here to the left. There's a spot of Molly's blood that's in there. Molly's blood should be nowhere near this Malibu. Right?
Unless it ties right to the defendant, which it does. And it's the further identity of his embalmer. So the defendant has what? Exclusive control of the Malibu. He never, never, never puts two men in the vehicle with Officer Romero. Has plenty of chances to do that, and he doesn't do it. He also has control of this car.
from July 18th to August 21st when it is seized, when it is taken into custody by the Iowa DCI. So he has the ability to clean it, dispose of things. We don't know what the trunk actually looked like on July 18th of 2018. We know what it looked like on August 21st of 2018, and it had two spots of Molly's blood in there. Did I already say that Molly's blood shouldn't be in there anywhere?
She has no association with this man. It puts her in the trunk. And he knows this. Now, after it's found, keep that in mind for later. It's irrefutable that she's there on the seal and in the trunk. How Molly was found also corroborates the confession of the defendant. There's a series of photos here that we put in to evidence. Underneath this corn is the body of Molly Tippetts.
I'm not going to show you after the corn is removed. It's in evidence. I'm not going to show you that again. You know what it shows. But these pictures that are here, all of which are in evidence, You notice what drew everybody's attention is Molly's colorful jogging shoes. That's how she was found. But she's underneath the corn. Now look at that corn and those corn stalks.
They look like they've been there for a little while. They don't appear to have been moved, again, by anyone. They're laying across her body as her body decomposes under them. And this is what they found. There's her hand. that you can see on the ground. So how does this help corroborate what the defendant told Pamela Romero? Well, remember, he took them out there. He showed them where she was.
He never walked back into the corn with the officers. But what did he tell them that he did? He told them that he put corn stalks over her. Clearly, that's what happened. And that's what he told them then. Again, not involving two other guys, right? Only him. It corroborates his confession. He knows that. That's what we have here. This corroborates his confession.
And, again, third component of the states with regard to physical evidence, location, we'll talk a little bit more about that here in a second, and the condition of the corn and what was on her body, just as he said. It all corroborates. It is all starting to fit together. Okay, motive. I want to talk a bit about motive. Motive is not an element in murder.
If you look at those four elements that we're just talking about, motive's not mentioned in them. But the judge has given you an instruction that talks about motive and utilizing it to judge whether or not you want to believe something and what somebody's testifying to. So you certainly can look at their motive, their candor, and their bias. So you can look at motive in this case.
So if not the defendant, let's look at motive for a bit. Who had a motive to kill her? Who had a motive to kill Molly Tibbetts? Who? The defendant spent a fair amount of time on Dalton Jack. We'll talk about him later before we're done today. But if not the defendant, who had the motive to kill Molly Tibbetts? A sweet girl, college girl, woman, 20 years old, no other motive.
So how does the defendant have a motive? Well, he tells us what it is. Anger is a pretty good one. Anger is probably one of the oldest motives in the history of human beings for why people get hurt. Somebody gets angry and they take steps and act on that anger. Why is he angry? She has rebuked him. Molly threatened to call the police. We've already talked about this.
We'll talk about it again because this does not fit at all with the other two men theory. So Molly rebukes him. Molly is threatening to call the police, and the defendant was angry. He says that. He tells us that. He also says when he gets angry, he blacks out. That's what he claims. That's what he told the police. But what do we know? We know that she rebuked him. He did not like it.
And he is angry. And the way he reacts to that anger is to stab this young woman to death and dump her body into a cornfield. Now, whenever we look at motive, it's not one of those things where you say, oh, OK, now it makes sense, where you understand really why somebody would do that and have some common understanding with them. That's not what I'm talking about.
What motive is, is having some evidence as to why something happened. And this is why it happened, and we know it happened because the defendant told us that's what was in his head. One of the key things in this case is that the defendant led officers to Molly's body. No one other than the defendant knew where Molly was located.
The officers, the cops in this case, investigators, agents have been searching up and down, have been talking to all sorts of people, trying to figure out, you know, who, right? Who would have done this to her? Who would have had a motive to do it? The defendant, whenever they talk to him, they say, take us to her, and he does. Turn by turn. Takes him right there.
He led them to Molly in the dark from Yerby Farms. Remember when they left the police station, left the sheriff's office, they had to go out to Yerby Farms to orient him, and then he took them there. No mention of two other men. Only Molly's killer would know her location. Only that person. And the defendant's testimony proves how important this is. You know why? He knows this.
He knows this is the one kind of thing that people can't get past whenever it comes to his guilt, right? That he led them to the body. Wow, that's pretty powerful. So then what does he do? He comes up with another story. Denial, saw the car, takes them to the body, admits to what we've already talked about, and then number four, we heard, yesterday because he's trying to explain this one away.
All right, other suspects that's been raised here. Here's some of their names, Dalton Jack, Chaney, Pexa, Tomatic, Eichhorn, Culver, all these other names that come up. The cops ran these leads to the ground. They looked, right? They talked to these men. They could find no connection.
Are they just supposed to ignore everything that Christian Ramirez told them at the end and start keep hammering on these guys and keep coming back to them? Or do you follow the evidence in the case? They followed the evidence in the case.
There's no evidence that any of these men on that list, including Dalton, who we'll talk about a little bit more specifically later, had knowledge of the defendant, knew who he was, had any connection to his Chevy Malibu, or had any real reason to harm this young woman. None. Dalton Jack had no knowledge.
One of the things that the defendant says in his testimony that one of the person, the shorter one, knew the defendant had a child, there's no evidence that Dalton Jack knew that or that Ron Pexson knew that, right? That he brings up the child because they threatened him. That's the whole reason he says he didn't talk about these two guys. I mean, come on. I mean, no knowledge.
No connection between any of these men and the defendant. None. So remember, back in jury selection, we talked about possibilities. Whenever we did jury selection, we did it in three different groups. I think I asked each one of you, not each one of you here, but each one of your groups about possibilities. Is it possible?
I think the example that I used was, can we go outside of this arena that we're in to pick the jury during COVID? And if there's a hundred dollar bill that's laying out there, is it possible it could be there? Yeah, it's possible, but you don't know, right? I could suggest it just because I suggest it doesn't make it true. That's the whole point, right?
All these possibilities that are thrown out about Dalton Cech and Ron Pexa and all these other guys that the officers looked at. Possibility, possibility, possibility. But what's the evidence in the case? that they're associated, really none. The evidence in the case that the officers follow, that we're asking you to follow, is what we actually know.
And not just because the officers say it, because we can see it. And we can see the maps, and we can see the testimony, or hear the testimony, and we can hear and see the physical evidence in the case. Just because someone suggests something doesn't make it so.
It doesn't mean that you're not firmly convinced about exactly the opposite if the evidence proves that that's true beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't fall for the possibilities. There are three other elements. We do have to prove them. I'm going to wrap this up here in just a moment. But the element number two is that Molly Tibbetts died as a result of being stabbed.
So now we've got element one, identification. Was it Christian Bahena Rivera that stabbed Molly Tibbetts? Beyond a reasonable doubt. You should be firmly convinced based upon the overwhelming evidence that we have in this case about the defendant. So Molly Tibbetts then, number two, died as a result of being stabbed. There's no real issue here.
She was stabbed somewhere, I think Dr. Klein said, and Dr. Garvin, who testified, talked about the wounds to the ribs. They did a very detailed examination of her. This woman was brutally stabbed. There should be no doubt about that. We have to prove it. It's the cause of death element. ID is one, cause of death is two, right?
So the second one that we have to prove, Molly Tibbetts died as a result of being stabbed. There's no... question here. We saw the defects in her jogging bra that are sharp force injuries. I think there were seven of them. The sharp force injuries that are on her ribs, same thing. So element number two, right? Element one, ID, proven. Element number two, cause of death, proven.
Element number three, this is one of two mental states that the defendant has to have in order to commit murder in the first degree. The first one is element number three, which is the defendant acted with malice aforethought. A fixed purpose or design to do some physical harm, here to Molly Tibbetts, which exists before the act was committed. The same injuries that were inflicted upon her
prove malice aforethought. Now that we have identity, we know that it's Christian Bahena-Rivera that committed these acts that stabbed Molly Tibbetts. He would have plunged a knife into her at least nine times. Sharp force injuries to her neck and to her chest, which killed her. If that's not malice aforethought, I'm not sure what is.
And really, the injuries to Molly Tibbetts and this mental state that was used to cause those injuries that existed before he would have plunged the knife into her really is not in dispute. So malice of forethought has to be proven in order to be murder. So looking at the injuries, looking at the circumstances, the stab wounds, element number three is proven.
The second mental state that we have to prove is that the defendant acted willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly with specific intent to kill Molly Tibbetts. The same evidence that we have here It's a little bit exceeding that because we can go back to the things that happened on the roadway to help establish what his mental state was at the time, the specific intent to kill.
But the stab wounds here, the injuries to Molly Tibbetts, what he did afterwards, he didn't tell anyone, all of those things. How he left her in the corn, all of those things, the repeated stab wounds that took time and effort to do. There's no other intent here other than specific intent to kill. There is premeditation, there is willfulness, and there is deliberation.
He tracked her down, he found her on the road, he got angry, and he stabbed her to death and he dumped her body. That's what the evidence is in this case. So, going back to our first element, we've spent most of the time this morning talking about that. On or about the 18th day of July 2018, it was the defendant who stabbed Molly Tibbetts. Molly Tibbetts died as a result of being stabbed.
The defendant acted with malice of forethought, and the defendant acted willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and with specific intent to kill. This is a saying that I learned from a DCI agent that I worked with. His name was Bill Basler. He's up in Mason City. He had this on his wall. And Bill's been retired for quite some time. I worked a number of cases with him. And he had this on his wall.
It always has struck me as very much driving to somebody's common sense. And that's what we want you to do. We want you to look at this through the lens of your common sense. The instructions allow you to do that. And that's what we want you to do, is to look at that through common sense.
What is this?
When you hear thundering hoes, they're horses, not zebras. What does that mean? It means look at the obvious, right? That's what it's after. Don't look for the exotic, right? Look for what the evidence, where it takes you. Look at what the proof is in the case. Look at those things. What the defendant said he did. He never introduces two men till yesterday. Think about that.
What is the obvious in this case? Christian Bahena-Rivera is guilty. He's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Looking at all this evidence in the case, I do get a chance to, by the way, talk to you after Mr. Freeze is done. And we'll have an additional time to do that, and we'll cover some more ground, particularly as it relates to some of the statements the defendant made yesterday.
So we'll talk about that. But looking at the evidence in this case, all of it, the video, the confession, the blood that's in the trunk, all the other circumstances, all the other investigation that went into this, it all points to one person and one person only. The judge gave you an instruction right towards the end of the set of instructions that he read. Here's what he said.
He told you that your job as jurors, your sole duty as jurors, is to find the truth and to do justice. That's your job as jurors. And looking at all the evidence in this case, Looking at everything that we have, all of the circumstances, the truth here is overwhelming. That the defendant murdered Molly Tibbetts on July 18th of 2018. That the defendant committed murder in the first degree.
He took Molly's life. He stabbed her to death. and he dumped her in a cornfield. Justice in this case, ladies and gentlemen, is a verdict of murder in the first degree. Thank you.