Crimeatorium - The Murder of Mollie Tibbetts: Court Trial Part 6 of 8

Episode Date: June 30, 2026

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.This episode covers the court trial, edited for length and clarity. Look for part 7 tomorrow.Music:CO.AG Music https://www.youtube.com/@co.agmusic1823

Welcome to True Crime Stories with Crime-a-Trorian. The prosecutor got up and told you that this case is about Molly Tibbetts. And this case is about Molly Tibbetts. You all sat through some very disturbing pictures, some very disturbing testimony. You saw her body in the decomposed state, and your heart should break for Molly Tibbetts. Your heart should break for her family. Molly Tibbetts deserves justice. Her family deserves justice. But so does Christian Fajena Rivera.

The defense position is an interesting one because a lot of times you sat through jury selection and it was made a point several times that it's the job of the state to prove my client guilty. Oftentimes, you won't hear any evidence from the defense whatsoever. oftentimes the defense will just rely on the inconsistencies or the failure to investigate of the state but that's not what we will do here we won't just rely on the the failure of the state to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt we intend to bring you witnesses and that's because you need to hear what they have to say. Ladies and gentlemen, this case is about a man that immigrated here from Mexico. You will hear about Christian's family circumstances and the reasons that he decided to come into this country. You'll hear about the differences

in Mexico, that it's not just $7.25 an hour versus $12 an hour that someone can make for an income capacity, that the differences between someone that is trying to find employment in Mexico and someone that is trying to find employment in the United States, it's a fraction that a person can make down there. And although we brought this case and we talked about immigration, because we must embrace it. We must embrace that the evidence here shows you that Mr. Bahena-Rivera came to this country.

You can agree with it. You cannot agree with it. You know, you can be Republican or you can be Democrat. But the evidence here that you must decide, the evidence here that you must rely on, has nothing to do with that side issue. It's the black or the white socks that we talked about in jury selection. And what we ask you to do is when you evaluate the evidence, to set that aside. It's not part of the case. It's not part of the elements.

it's just a mere fact that you must rely on and what you must do is take all those other facts take all those other things whether you agree on them or you don't agree on them and to decide whether or not you believe the evidence can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt now let's talk about this interrogation. You heard Ms. Romero and I quibble between an interview and an interrogation. It wasn't an interview. It wasn't an interrogation. What you will see in this case is there's no dispute on the fact that my client worked 12 hours at a dairy farm, poop and poop, cleaning grounds. And then at the end of his day, he was brought to the Poweshiek County Sheriff's Office. Now, did he voluntarily go? Yes. Was he asked,

hey, will you come down? Yes. But something that you must decide and something that you must think about from the evidence is whether this man this defendant here a man who is a yes man that's what the evidence will show you go clean the stable yes go do this yes go do that yes and the evidence will show you the evidence has shown you that they came to this dairy farm and everybody cooperated everybody just took a buckle swab everybody did what they needed to do consistent with what they did that day and you hear about this interrogation and then it went on and on and on unfortunately you're not going to be able to see the entire thing it's insanity but what the evidence has shown you and what the evidence will show you is that there was a

systematic confrontation with my client the first thing is he was talked to you know tell me about your life tell me about your family tell me about your daughter tell me about all of those things that are you that are christian bahena rivera and then they started to confront him with the evidence they confronted him with this videotape they confronted him with these pictures and they said, you know, we don't believe you. We don't believe that you weren't there. And the confrontation continued until it was put in my client's head, perhaps you blacked out. The state in this case, they got what they wanted, and they closed the case. They got what they needed. There was an intense amount of pressure, that's what the evidence has shown you, to close

this case to arrest someone for this vicious crime. And instead of continuing to work the case, instead of continuing to work the evidence, they just submitted it to you. Now, the first witness that you will hear from today is a Dr. Michael Spence. He is a DNA expert. He used to work at the Indiana State Crime Lab. He's done consulting work and cancer research and other DNA evidence. And what he will tell you is that in that trunk liner, Molly Tibbetts' DNA was found. But he will also tell you that there were other contributors, that there were other sources, And that because only Christian Bahena-Rivera's DNA was provided and Molly Tibbetts' DNA was provided, because no other DNA was provided, those alleles, those DNA profiles, are unaccounted for.

We do not know. You will also hear from different witnesses that knew my client. You will hear about his family. You will hear about his life. You will hear about his routine. You've heard Mr. Fries talk about different suspects. You've heard Mr. Fries talk about different evidence that was ignored or not. And it is our job, it's our obligation to Mr. Bahena to bring forth to you anything that can cast doubt on the state's evidence. It's our obligation to you, to Mr. Bahena, to fairly, if we can, provide you with the evidence that does not support a conviction. Each one of you is an intricate person with very different backgrounds.

Each one of you, you don't leave your common sense at the door, has a different story. Each one of you have different ways to look at the evidence. And what we ask you to do is to listen to our case fairly, to pay attention, and to remember that each one of you have the power to say no. Thank you. The defense may call their first witness. Thank you. We call Dr. Spence. Please state your name for the court. My name is Dr. Michael J. Spence, S-P-E-N-C-E.

What we've asked you to do is to take a look at the DNA analysis and get kind of a second opinion. Is that right? Correct. When were you first contacted to look at Christian Bahena Rivera's case? That would be beginning of October of 2019. What did you review in looking at his case? I reviewed these reports involved in this instance. There were four of them. Now, when DNA evidence is submitted, how do you find a match or, you know, compare it with someone's known DNA?

Well, within these reports, they're reporting documents, and probably the key documents within there are something called electropharograms. I'll call them e-grams to make it easier on everybody. These e-grams are just the actual data output from each of the evidence items. I mentioned there's 26 evidence items, but you also have references from, in this case, a couple of known individuals, and you can do comparisons of what's on the e-grams from those and deduce, for example, when there's mixtures of DNA, whether a person's DNA is within that mixture or not. In this case, what known DNA samples were submitted, sir? There were only two that were used for those comparative purposes, and those would be the victim, Ms. Tibbetts, and the defendant, Mr.

Baena. There were some other samples were submitted when Ms. Tibbetts was still missing to try to develop a DNA profile. Is that right? That's correct. And explain that just briefly for the jury. Well, in some instances where we have a body that's been found, there might be difficulties in getting a good DNA profile from that person or verifying that that is the right person. So you can take family members and do comparisons to family members to confirm that they're related and that you're not misidentifying anybody or you're not getting any of the genetic information wrong. And that was done in this case. When it comes to examining the results within Iowa DCI reports and checking their conclusions against all supporting documents. Isn't it true that one

thing that you are looking for is problems? Yes. And in this case, did you find any problems with the analyzing of the evidence? No, just based on what the typical protocols are. I didn't see any major issues with handling or possible risks of contamination or protocols that were in place that weren't followed properly. I didn't see those kind of problems in this case. So all the proper protocols were followed, no issues there, is that right? Yeah, there were no surprises there. There were no major problems, but when you refer to interpretation, first of all, what does interpretation mean for the jury?

Well, typically that's going to be the interpretation of what's on those e-grams. And what did you see there, sir? I saw on various items, just generally speaking, there were mixtures that could be seen. In some cases, the mixtures were fairly strong profiles, but in some instances, they were weaker profiles. But generally, with a lot of labs, within their guidelines, what they do is they get mixtures that are somewhat complex and weak signals, and they just refer to those result comparisons as inconclusive. And in some instances, I wouldn't necessarily call them inconclusive. Ms. Tibbetts, we know, is a victim of a crime here.

You'd agree with that. Is that right? Yeah, that's clear. And Mr. Bahena-Rivera has been charged. So it makes sense that his buckle swab has been submitted. Is that right? Correct. So in reference to Ms. Tibbetts and Mr. Bahena-Rivera, what are we looking for just with them?

Well, in any case, it's similar to this, where it's simplified. It's just looking at a defendant and just looking at a victim. You're going to typically look at things that are possessions of the defendant, for example, his vehicle is key in this case, or any kind of possessions that would be from any defendant, things like his clothing or his personal items. You're going to not necessarily be interested in his DNA on his own items. You're looking for foreign DNA, specifically a victim of a crime. You want to look within a car for that victim or any other items from him. Conversely, if you're taking samples from the actual person who's been victimized or that person's clothing, you're not necessarily very interested in their profile

there. You're looking for foreign profiles. Specifically, if you see evidence of the defendant there on a victim, on her or on her clothing, you want to be able to characterize that and identify that presence. If, and I'm talking about in a hypothetical, we see unaccounted for DNA, does that 100% mean that somebody else was involved in a crime? It could mean that, but the DNA is not going to tell you that. But it can tell us if there's an out of place individual somewhere near a location of a crime scene that perhaps might have been involved. Is that correct? Yes, that could be what you're looking at when you see unaccounted for alleles on an item that is in a location like that. Now, sir, I'm going to direct your attention

to the examination of the trunk liner in this case. With reference to the trunk liner, which was covered in item number 58 that was submitted to the lab, do you have some interpretation differences? Yes. 58, the area 58, I'll call it, can be broken down into various sub-items. Most key is 58.1, 58.2, 58.3, and 58.4. I'm not sure which is which on here, but those were all what were considered possible blood stains. And when a presumptive test for blood was run those tests positive, those four areas. And what did you find that you disagree as a matter of interpretation, sir? Well, in the instance of, for example, 58.1, there were 17 unaccounted for alleles. And just to refer to what I mean by unaccounted for, we have to recall that

the only two individuals we're comparing this to are the only two individuals that were typed in this case, the only two references, and those were Ms. Tibbetts and the defendant. Outside of their inventory of genetic markers, what we call alleles, were 17 unaccounted for alleles that had to be from somebody else or more than one other person. And there was a clear indication there was female DNA within there that, once again, we don't want to confuse that that might have been Ms. Tibbetts. We're talking about a female other than Ms. Tibbetts. So what it showed is that Ms. Tibbetts' DNA was clearly in that trunk liner. Is that correct? Not on that particular place. We're not necessarily certain about that. In the instance of the laboratory interpretation,

58.1 was written off as inconclusive comparisons there. I disagree with that to a degree, the interpretation, in that there needed to be an added statement, for example, that there were unaccounted for alleles in another source of DNA that was not Ms. Tibbetts'. And did it point to a gender of what that DNA contribution would be? It appeared to be a female source. Is there any other interpretation differences that you would have with 58 and specifically with reference to 58.1, 58.2, 58.3, 58.4? Yeah, when you look at 58.2, there were also unaccounted for alleles in that instance. It was only seven of them. There was a clear overlap between what you were seeing in the unaccounted for alleles on 58.1, where there were 17. When

you get to 58.3 and 58.4, there were only four unaccounted for alleles that couldn't have been from Ms. Tibbetts, could not have been from the defendant. And there was, when you get down to four alleles, it's hard to say there's overlap because it's just a few alleles. A lot of people could carry those, but there was some similarity throughout the one, two, three, and four there in Area 58. Let's move on to Item 59. That's another fabric-covered liner area from the trunk of the Black Malibu. Is that correct, sir? That's correct. Describe any interpretation issues that you have there. When we talk about Area 59, there were multiple areas that were looked at, but there were three particular areas where there was a presumptive positive for blood. So we're not

confirming blood here, but there's a clear indication that probably what you're looking at is blood. And those were 58.3, 4, and 5. I'm sorry, I'm saying 58. See, I knew I was going to get confused. 59.3, 4, and 5. On 59.3, there was a mixture, I believe that was called as a mixture of at least three individuals with the stronger profile was clearly consistent with Ms. Tibbetts. And I agree with that 100%. There was additional genetic information there. In one instance, it was 10. I'm sorry, in 59.3, it was 10 unaccounted for alleles. And so those couldn't have been from missed habits, could not have been from the defendant either. And that appeared to be from an unknown male. Unknown because we only have one male to compare that genetic information to.

Right. So 59.3, there is a DNA source that is from what you believe to be an unknown male. Is that correct? Yes. Beyond the clear, what we would call a major presence of missed hibbets, there were those 10 alleles. And then also at 59.4, there were four additional unaccounted for alleles that showed some similarity to what was in 59.3, but not that clear. And then 59.5, that was very weak. And the laboratory called that inconclusive. And I agree, it was too inconclusive to even work with. All right. Let's move on to 60, which also is part of the fabric trunk liner. Is that correct? That's correct. And what were your findings in analyzing that evidence? In that instance, once again, using the inventory of DNA from Ms. Tibbetts,

the inventory of DNA from the defendant, what unaccounted for alleles were there at 60.1 added up to 14 unaccounted for alleles in that instance. It was a little too iffy to say whether that was male or female with very weak alleles, but there were a lot of them, 14. So you just know that there's another contributor that is not Ms. Tibbetts, correct? Correct. And the contributor is also not Mr. Bahena-Rivera, is that right? That's correct. Were there similar results from the area of the fabric aligner of the door of the trunk, that's item 61.1? Yes. In that instance, there were, once again, just looking at the inventory of the two individuals, there were five unaccounted for alleles in that location.

So when it comes to the details of specific interpretations, and specifically with reference to 58, 59, 60, and 61. What is your interpretation, sir? I would say that it's typical of a lot of laboratories that they are going to be very oversimplified in interpreting mixtures like that. And a lot of times they're going to be just written off as uninterpretable or not suitable for comparison. And to some degree, I agree with that, but I disagree that there are unaccounted for alleles that could not be tied to either the defendant or Ms. Tibbetts, that there are other contributors there. And you can even, in some instances, as I pointed out, you could deduce that they were likely from a female in one instance in one area of 58.

And then there was male DNA in another area that was unaccounted for. And then a few other areas where there were just a few added alleles in there. And it was difficult to say what the gender was of those people, except that they were not Ms. Tibbetts and they were not the defendant. If a known DNA sample were provided to the lab, could that be compared to see if there were similarities with the samples? Yes, you can always do a comparison. No further questions. Thank you. Mr. Brown, you may cross-examine. Just to make sure I have this understood with regard to what you do, you don't have a laboratory of your own, is that correct?

I do not. If you wanted to have any item tested in this case, you would have to submit it to an outside lab, is that correct? Yeah. You don't do your own testing? No, I do not. The only background that you have with any state crime lab, like what Ms. Scott, who she works for, was in Indiana for about four years? Yes. Is that true?

It was four years with Indiana State Police. Okay. You are aware from reviewing all of the laboratory material that samples were retained for further testing if needed. Is that true? That's correct. And that is sticking with DCI laboratory protocols. Would that be true? Yeah, that's similar to the protocols we had with the Indiana State Police is to avoid consumption of items.

All right. And that's so it can be retested, correct? Yes. Either to confirm or disconfirm what the criminalist would have done at the state laboratory here in Iowa. Is that right? That's the idea, yes. Okay. Did you request that any of the items that you reviewed in the report be resubmitted to an outside laboratory for any type of testing? No, I typically don't recommend doing outsourced testing or recommend against it. If that issue comes up, that's where I point out that there are labs that I favor over other labs.

I understand, but you were mentioning with Ms. Freese earlier in your testimony these other items that you were interpreting beyond what Ms. Scott interpreted, correct? Yeah, there are items that were interpreted by the Iowa DCI, but the interpretations were just a little bit oversimplified and as being inconclusive results. And would you expect that if you resubmitted those items to an outside laboratory, the same results would have occurred? If you're talking about comparison just to the two individuals, I think you probably, you would at least expect the same results. What the key is, is that are there other individuals there? Well, there are. We'd have to take reference samples and make comparisons to those. You have any issue at all with the state crime lab, that they followed their own protocols in this case in interpreting what was found in the trunk of the Black Malibu?

No, I have no issues with the way that they did their protocols. And as for their interpretations, I've been pretty clear about how I might interpret things a little bit different than the way they did. And would it be fair to say that Ms. Scott's interpretations are fairly conservative when it comes to identifying any person's DNA in the trunk? Yeah, I think that's typical of a lot of laboratories, that they're going to be a little bit noncommittal when there are weak added profiles that are present within there. and certainly your interpretation would be subject to disagreement is that correct that is always the case okay we were to ask another criminalist that has dna expertise they might disagree with what you're saying here today they would be free to do so if they felt that that was correct that your interpretations are a little bit more liberal than the

interpretations of the dci crime lab would that be true i would say that comparing them side by side. It's more liberal to say that they were unaccounted for alleles, but there clearly were. So I find it hard to believe that they disagree with at least that. I'm assuming that you are aware of a bloodstain that was found on the trunk seal of the black Chevy Malibu. Are you aware of that? Yes, I am. And you're aware that that particular bloodstain was compared to the known DNA of Molly Tibbetts. Yes, that's correct. And the testimony has been that that DNA that was developed from that bloodstain was a match to the known DNA of Molly Tibbetts. Do you disagree with that? I agree fully with that. And on that bloodstain, on that trunk liner that is Molly

Tibbetts' blood, there was no mixture, correct? No, there was a single source in that instance, And that single source DNA profile that is Molly Tibbetts' blood would give us strong evidence. Would you agree that Molly Tibbetts was on or in the trunk of a black Malibu? It was a single source. How it got there, the DNA can't tell you that, only that it's there and it's clearly her DNA. There's no doubt that it might be somebody else. It's not. I understand.

We have to look at all the evidence in the case to make that determination. Would you agree? I would agree. You're just one part of that, like Ms. Scott is one part of the case. Would that be true? Precisely. But the blood certainly associates an injured Molly Tibbetts with the black Malibu. Would that be true? I think that that's a reasonable assumption, yes. And the mixture that's inside the trunk also has the known DNA of Molly Tibbetts, is that correct?

In the one case that was 59.3, yes, I fully agree that that was consistent with Molly Tibbetts. Certainly that blood would associate Molly Tibbetts with the trunk of the black Malibu, is that correct? Yes, presuming that that's blood, and I think that that's a reasonable presumption. There's no doubt that that was from her and could have been from an injury sustained to the woman. It would associate Molly Tibbetts' presence inside the trunk of the black Chevy Malibu, is that correct? I think that there's potential for that, yes. and again the fact that molly's blood is inside the trunk would indicate to you or any other expert looking at this that she was injured while she was in the trunk would that be true i think

that that would be very reasonable logical assumption concerning your interpretation of the presence of other dna you have no idea how that other dna may have been transferred into the trunk. Is that true? That's correct. You might look at other factors and other evidence in a case to draw that conclusion, correct? Yes, this is where a lot of other factors can be considered to try and determine who that is. Okay, and you might look at statements that the driver of the black Malibu made in helping to make that kind of determination. Would that be true? I think that that would be pertinent information to consider, yes. Okay, and you might look at what other witnesses may have said in the case or testified to concerning how or when a person might have been

associated with a vehicle. Would that be true? Yeah, I think that in all cases, you do want to consider what witnesses say. All right. Now, the other profile that you're testifying to with regard to interpretation, one of those was female, correct? That's correct. That could be Molly Tibbetts' DNA, would that be true? In the instance of the areas on 59, I'm sorry, 58, area 58, no, they were unaccounted for alleles that were not consistent with Ms. Tibbetts or the defendant. Okay, so you can exclude Molly Tibbetts based upon your interpretation? There's really no cause to believe that her DNA is in that particular area, 58.1. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Would that mean another female had been in the trunk?

Oh, there's no way of knowing if that means somebody was in the trunk. So it could have been transferred in there by another item that had been placed in the trunk at some point in time. Yeah, it could be direct contact from a person. It could be a transfer event. It could be someone in the trunk. There's no way of knowing how that came to be there. And the same would be true with regard to what you've identified and interpreted as another male DNA in the trunk. Would that be true?

That's correct. It's the same answers for those. Would you agree that heat and elements degrade DNA? The DNA is very resistant to heat. It can be, but it's best not for it to be exposed to heat. Moisture can be bad. Sunlight can be bad for DNA. And just a lot of things can erode, rub off, or dilute DNA. All right. And you're aware of the fact that Molly Tibbetts was found in a cornfield in rural Poweshiek County on August 21st of 2018. Are you aware of that? Yes, I am. And it would appear

that her body had been there for several weeks. Would that be true? That's correct. All right. And that type of decomposition that would have occurred in this case would certainly degrade DNA. Is that right? It's going to have a tendency to degrade DNA, to be out in the environment exposed in that fashion, to remove all the DNA. Not likely, but it's not going to be very helpful for recovery of DNA. Have you ever been in a cornfield in the middle of July after a rainstorm? Probably have been. That's an Indiana thing there. I lived right next to one. It can be fairly humid, correct? Oh yeah. And wet. Yes. And all of those things affect the ability to get any type of identifiable DNA from a body. Is that correct? That's correct.

Dr. Spence, thank you very much. I don't have any further questions. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Ms. Freese, do you have redirect? Sir, let's talk first about the single source DNA profile from Molly Tibbetts' blood on the bumper of the vehicle. You recall talking about that. Is that right? Yes. And so for that, only Molly Tibbetts' blood was found there, is that correct? That's correct. And so there weren't any other sources to compare to or anything like that, is that correct?

That's correct. Now, focusing then to items 59 and 60, those are both inside of the trunk, is that correct? That's my understanding as to how those were located. And I want to focus to 59.3. That's a cutting that was taken from the fabric liner. Is that right? That's correct. And your findings were that one of the profiles was Molly Tibbetts. Is that correct? Yes. But you also found that there were two other DNA profiles that were included. Is that right? There did appear to be more than one other source. The strongest source, were you able to give any sort of opinion as to whether those came from a male or a female?

Those did appear to be from a male. Now, we have Mr. Bahena-Rivera's sample to compare. Is that correct? That's correct. What about item 60.1? That's another item that there was a mixture of DNA found. Is that right? Yes. And if we had another known buckle swab of a potential suspect, would that be of use in comparison? Yeah, if you had a known reference from anybody, you could do that same comparison. No further questions.

Mr. Brown, any recross? Just a few questions, Judge. You would agree that the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation did not break their interpretation guidelines. Would that be true? I don't believe so, no. And is it safe to say, Dr. Spence, that you would expect another person's DNA in the trunk of a well-used car? It wouldn't be a surprise to find other sources of DNA. And are you aware as to the protocols that the DCI crime lab follows in making their comparisons in DNA analysis?

I wouldn't say I'm fluent in that. So there was no real surprise in some instances calling mixtures uninterpretable. interpretable. And so it's no surprise to you and certainly within the realm of the expertise of the DNA analysts at the crime lab that they will not compare a sample if it is too weak or too complex. Sometimes they will and surprise me that they do and sometimes they won't and it surprises me that they didn't do a comparison. In this instance they only had the two references so with unaccounted four alleles. They wrote those off as uninterpretable. And DNA, blood, items where you can develop a profile, you cannot place a time as to when that particular DNA was placed

in that particular location. Would that be true? That's correct. DNA doesn't come with a timestamp. You have no dispute that Molly Tibbetts' blood and DNA was on the trunk seal of the black Chevy Malibu that's at issue in this case? No, I don't dispute that at all. And you also don't dispute that Molly Tibbetts' blood and DNA was inside the trunk of the black Chevy Malibu that's one of the subjects of this case. Would that be true? Yes. So Molly Tibbetts' blood is inside the trunk? Apparently, yes. All right. That's all. Thank you. Ms. Fries, are we done with this witness? Yes. The defense may call their next witness. Defense calls Alejandra Cervantes. Please state your full name.

Alejandra Cervantes Valle. Where do you live? I live in Toledo, Iowa. Who do you live there with? With my husband and my children. Are you related by marriage to Christian Bahena Rivera? Yes. How are you related to Christian Bahena Rivera?

Because he's my husband's nephew. When approximately did you first meet Christian Bahena-Rivera? Four, five, six, seven years. And is that the time that Christian Bahena-Rivera came to the central Iowa area? Yes. How did you find out that he was coming? Well, I don't remember well how he went. The only thing I knew is that he was already here.

Did Christian Bahena-Rivera come by lawful means? No. Since Christian Bahena-Rivera has been in this country, has he been employed? Yes. Where has he worked? Well, I knew that he worked at a, well, we call it the dairy. How often would Christian Bahena-Rivera work? All week.

Would his work take him every day? Yes. Describe Christian Bahena-Rivera's demeanor, how he is around family. Well, with the family, he's very funny. He always is playing with the family. If he is with people that he does not know, have you seen him? Yes. Describe his behavior then.

He's very shy. He's shy. He's quiet. So once people get to know him, he's more outgoing. Is that right? when he feels comfortable with the people yes you understand that Christian Bahena Rivera has been charged with the murder of Molly Tibbetts is that right yes now when this woman went missing did you see information about it on the news yes how did you become aware that Christian Bahena Rivera had been sought by law enforcement? Well, I found out once that he had been stopped to be asked questions, use routine questions. And the second time, it was when my sister-in-law called us and let us know that he was at the Manasuma Police Department.

So you find out that he's being brought in for questioning, is that right? Yes. As time goes on, do you become concerned for his welfare? Yes. Did you go to the police department? yes the police department you said is in montezuma is that right yes what time did you arrive i arrived there at like 8 30 when you arrived there was there anyone else in your family that was there yes my brother-in-law what is his name luis medina when you arrived there were you even admitted inside of the building? No. When you get there, there's a small, I guess you could call it like a small porch that you go into when you get there. If you go further inside a locked door,

there's a waiting room with chairs. Is that right? Yes. Were you allowed admission into that waiting room where there were chairs? No. So you stayed in the kind of porch area is what you're same. Yes. How long approximately were you at the sheriff's office? I was there from 8 30 until 1 30 in the morning. When you were there were there officers and did it appear there were things going on? Yes. Did you attempt through any means to try to talk with an officer? When they went by and I saw them, yes. Did they help you? No. Did you ask them any questions or anything like that? No. You have Christian Bahena-Rivera's phone number, is that right? Yes. Would it be unusual for him to call you? No. Would it be unusual for him to text you? No. Would he rely on you if he needed

help with something? Oh, yes. For example, previously, I think he's asked you to buy flowers for him for a date. Is that right? Yes. And were you able to organize that for him? Yes. Do you remember approximately when that was that Christian Rivera or Christian Bahena Rivera had that date? No, the date just escaped me right now. Okay. Sometime that summer of 2018. Yes. In any event, you and my client had fairly frequent phone contact. Is that right? Yes. Did you try to contact Christian Bahena-Rivera that night that he was taken into custody? Yes. How so?

We called his number. Were you able to reach him? No. How many times approximately did you try to reach Christian Bahena-Rivera by phone or text? We called him several times. I don't remember the exact number. At some point in time, did a woman come out and speak to you while you were at the sheriff's office? Yes. Describe what the woman looked like and what she was wearing. She looked young, like me. I remember that she was wearing a strong blue. I'd ask the court attendant to bring up

Defendant's Exhibit I.I. Ma'am, what picture is shown in Defendant's Exhibit I.I.? I see Christian in a corner, and I see the woman who spoke with us. Now I'd ask counsel to bring up Exhibit JJ. What's shown in those pictures, ma'am? I see Christian again in the corner, and I can see that she's leaving. The woman that's in the blue in Defendant's Exhibit JJ is the woman that came and talked to you, is that right? Yes. Approximately what time did she come and talk with you? like around 1030. When she came to talk to you, what did she say? I asked her if we needed an attorney for Christian. We had been waiting for him for several hours. Hang on. Yes, go ahead. And that this has previously been addressed by the court.

sustained on both grounds ma'am after you talked with this woman what did you do she said that we didn't need an attorney that and we've already addressed this at the bench i would ask that the court take some steps to admonish the witness with regard to her answer that would be consistent with your ruling so at this time we'll do two things the previous answer is stricken from the record The witness is hereby admonished that, well, the witness should not be speaking about this subject, and we'll have the next question posed, and I think the attorney understands that, given my ruling, we should not be in this area. So, go ahead. All right, ma'am. It was a bad question that I asked, okay?

Okay. Not your fault. Okay. Okay. I don't want you to tell the jury anything that Officer Romero told you. Okay. But do tell them how long you talked to Officer Romero. Very little, less than five minutes.

Did you ask when your nephew would be released? Yes. And did you also ask to see your nephew? No, we did not ask for that. After that conversation was done, were you offered any opportunity to see your nephew? No. Did you continue to wait? Yes.

And you continued to wait in this little porch area? Yes. At some point in time, did you and your family decide to leave? Yes. And why? At that time, several hours had already gone by. It was close to 1.30 in the morning, and at that time, we decided that they weren't going to give us any information, and so we decided to leave. Were you ever able to reach Christian Bahena Rivera?

No. At some point later, did you find out he had been arrested for murder? No. Are you aware of Christian Bahena Rivera's family in Mexico? Yes. Who did he live with in Mexico? With his parents and his sisters. Was he the oldest child of the family?

Yes. In a Hispanic culture, is it customary for the oldest sibling to take care of the family? Normally, yes. Would you talk with family in Mexico? Yes. And were you encouraged to take good care of Christian Bahena Rivera? Yes, especially my husband. Why so?

Because for all of the uncles that he has here, he's the youngest one. So they wanted you to take him under your wing, is that right? Yes. Was it your understanding that he was taking care of family in Mexico? Yes. How so? He was the one who was sending money so that they could eat, and he was the one who was sending money so that they could build their house.

No further questions. Nothing in mind. Mr. Brown, you may cross-examine. Mr. Serentes, how old was Christian Bahena Rivera as of July 18th of 2018, if you know? I'm not sure, but I think like 20. So he was an adult? Yes. You were at the sheriff's office on July, I'm sorry, on August 20th of 2018 from 8.30 to about 11.30 p.m., is that correct?

Until 1.30 in the morning. I'm sorry, I misspoke. 8.30 p.m. until 1.30 a.m. the next morning, is that correct? Yes. Were you always there with the other person that you had mentioned before? Yes. Did you ever leave the sheriff's office at any time in that same time frame? No. Between 8.30 p.m. and about 11.30 p.m., did you make or attempt any phone calls or text messages to Christian Rivera?

Calling him. And did he ever answer the phone? No. Did he ever respond to the text messages? No. Did you meet Pamela Romero while you were at the sheriff's office on August 20th, 2018? Yes. She came out into the area where you were waiting?

Yes. You had a conversation with her? Yes. She was pleasant to talk to? Yes. And do you know how long your conversation took with Ms. Romero? I believe less than five minutes. And was that the only contact that you had with her on that evening while you were at the sheriff's office?

Yes. Prior to July 18th of 2018, how often in any given week would you be in the presence of Christian Bahena-Rivera? Only once a week. Was that on average? Yes. And would that typically happen at your place of residence or some other place? He will always come to Luis's house. Luis who?

Luis Medina. And tell us again who Luis Medina is. He's my brother-in-law. Did you know Christian Bahena Rivera to drive a black Chevy Malibu? I only knew he had a black car. Ms. Cervantes, thank you very much. That's all the questions I have. Ms. Fries, any redirect? During the times that you were around Christian Bahena Rivera, was he ever violent?

No. Do you ever remember him fighting with anyone? Overruled. Witness may answer if she knows. No, he was not violent. Has he been respectful to your brothers-in-law and your husband? Yes. Around children?

Oh, yes. All the children loved him. He was a funny guy, correct? As you can understand, proper character evidence and specific instances of conduct are not admissible at this time. Objection's overruled. Witness may answer. Go ahead. Yes.

No further questions. Is Brown in a recross? No recross. Thank you. Please state your full name. Iris Menaris Gamboa. Where do you live, ma'am? Cedar Rapids.

Do you live there with anyone? My boyfriend and my daughter. What is your daughter's name? Paulina. And your daughter Paulina is how old? She's five. Who is Paulina's father? Christian Bahena Rivera. I want you to take the jury through how you met Christian Bahena Rivera. We met at a quinceanera, which is like a sweet 16. That's where we met. And a quinceanera, that's a Hispanic celebration. Yes.

Is that right? So you happen to be at this party, is that right? And Christian Bahena-Rivera also happened to be at this party, is that right? Yes. Approximately how long ago was it that you two met? 2013. Once you met, did you hit it off? Yes.

Exchange numbers? Yes. start to date each other as a couple? Yes. At some point, did you end up moving in together? Yes, when I got pregnant. All right. And that's pregnant with your daughter, Paulina. Is that right? Yes. Where did you two move in together? At my mom's house. And you lived there for a while. Is that right? Yes. At some point, did you decide to establish your own residence? Yes. And how did you find a place to live as a family? Well he worked at the Yarby Farms and we lived on their property. So he was able to to work out something where he was able to live at Yarby Farms is that

right? Correct. How long did you and Christian Bahena Rivera reside together at that place at Yarby Farms? From 2016 to 2017. Your daughter lived there, is that right? Yes. Approximately how old was she when you moved there? She was a year, I believe. And when you broke up, were you and my client able to co-parent your daughter as a mother and a father should? Yes. And specifically, Christian worked very long hours is that right? Yes. When he worked and you were living with him was he the primary support of your family? Yes. What approximately were his hours at Yarrabee Farms? About 12 hours. So he would go to work early in the morning is that right? Yes. And then he would come home around dinner time? Yes. How many days would he work consecutively? He would

only get his days off every two weeks. So every two weeks he would get two days off. He'd get two days off. Yes. So it'd be two weeks on, two days off. Is that right? When you and Christian broke up, were you able to work out without involving the court's parenting arrangement? Yes. And what did you two work out? He would give me $250 every two weeks because he got paid bi-weekly. So he'd get paid and he'd pay you every other week, is that right? Yes. Did Christian have other obligations, to your knowledge, to his family in Mexico? Yes, he would send money to his parents and he was also making a house over there for them. If someone is an illegal immigrant in this country, do they fear law enforcement contact? Yes. Why? Because they know they'll get

deported. Describe how he was as a father in general. He was a really good father. He was responsible and he always looked after his daughter. He made sure to take care of her, right? Yes. He would send you money even though there's no court order, right? Yes. Would he buy things for Paulina in addition to the support that he provided you? Yes. What sorts of things? Like shoes, toys. Has Christian Bahena Rivera ever been violent towards you? No. Has he ever been violent towards your daughter? No. Did Christian Bahena Rivera ever express any sort of anger that you believed was excessive? No. Other than the normal couples arguing, did he have any sort of anger problems? No. Now you graduated from Brooklyn, is that right? Yes. Brooklyn is a high

school that has a large Hispanic population, fair to say? No. Okay, approximately what percentage would be Hispanic? Well, from what I recall in my classroom, there were about three of us that were Hispanic. What was your graduating class? About 45 to 50 people. Was race something that was talked about often in Brooklyn? Yes. Objection, Your Honor. Relevance. Sustained. Ma'am, you associated with your class, is that correct? Yes. I want to ask you about a man named Ulysses Felix. Who is that? That's my cousin. And did he also go to Brooklyn High School? Yes. What year was he in relation to you? I believe he was two years younger. Did Ulysses Felix know Christian Bahena Rivera? Yes. Has Ulysses Felix spent time at Christian

Rivera-Behena's house? Yes. Did Ulysses Felix know Dalton Jack? Yes. Overruled. The witness may answer if she knows. Yes. Did you know Dalton Jack? Yes. Do you have an opinion as to Dalton Jack's demeanor? From what I recall, I remember he was pretty racist. No further questions. Mr. Claver, any cross? Yes, Your Honor. Actually, before you do so, Mr. Claver and Ms. Fries, why don't you approach real quick? Mr. Claver, you may proceed with your cross-examination of this witness. Thank you, Your Honor.

Ms. Gamboa, you lived with Christian Bahena-Rivera for four years, isn't that right? Yes, about four years. And you are familiar with the type of vehicle he drove? Yes. And that was a black Chevy Malibu? Yes. And can you tell me again the date that you broke up with Christian Bahena-Rivera? April of 2017.

After you broke up, you didn't have very much contact with him, is that correct? Whatever was related to our daughter, yes. And how often would that have been? Pretty often. I mean, throughout the week he would text and ask about her, and on his days off he would come for her. Do you recall speaking with the defendant then in August of 2018? Yes. And during one of those conversations, the defendant told you that he had contact with law enforcement? Yes.

And that contact was regarding the disappearance of Molly Tibbetts, isn't that right? I believe so. And this was prior to his arrest, correct? Correct. And you talked to law enforcement at some point in time, isn't that right? Yes. Would that have been in August and September of 2018? I don't remember the exact date, but yes, around there.

And during those interviews with law enforcement, you were asked about the defendant. Yes. And you were asked about whether you were familiar with any mental health issues that he may have had. Correct. And you stated that you weren't aware that he had any. Yes. And you stated in that interview you weren't aware of any periods where he claimed to have blacked out. Yes.

and you stated in that interview that you weren't aware of any periods where the defendant had memory issues correct correct thank you miss gamble i have no further questions for you any redirect no your honor defense may call its next witness thank you the defense calls anna young please state your full name my name is anna young and my last name is spelled y-o-u-n-g Where are you employed? I'm employed by the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, Criminalistics Laboratory in Ankeny, Iowa. What are your official duties? I'm assigned to the impression evidence section. The majority of what we do is latent print analysis. I want to talk to you about this case and specifically you were submitted some items that were found in the

the back of a trunk of a black Malibu. Is that right? That's correct. Could you describe for the jury what you received from the black Malibu, the trunk specifically? I'm referring to the laboratory item 62. And within that laboratory item, there were 14 items that I individualized to 62.1 through 62.14 that I then examined for latent prints. 62.1 was a red ice scraper. 62.2 was a clear storage box with fishing hooks. 62.3 was an empty Pepsi can. 62.4 was a pink child's ear exam toy.

62.5 were egg sinkers plastic bag 62.6 was snap on floats bag with floats inside 62.7 was a black plastic plug 62.8 was a black piece of plastic tubing 62.9 was a volleyball. 62.10 were Marlboro coupons. 62.11 was a gray plastic Walmart bag. 62.12 was a Spongebob feed bag. 62.13 was a partial roll of wrapping paper. 62.14 was a black plastic vehicle part. What were you requested to do with those items that were found in this trunk? I was requested to process them for possible latent prints. Did you process each and every item? I did. Were you able to find any latent prints suitable for identification on any of those items? Yes, I was. Which items were you able to find latent prints

suitable for identification? 62.1 and 62.2 which were the ice scraper and the fishing plastic box respectively. Let's talk first about the ice scraper. You were able to develop how many latent prints? One. Did you analyze those prints? I did. Right so you found one latent print on the scraper Is that right? That's correct. And then you also found two latent prints on another item. Is that correct? It's three. Three latent prints. Okay. Where did you find those? The three latent prints were located on the fishing clear plastic box. After you've developed the latent prints, you then try to compare them with other prints known to the case or the system. Is that right? That's correct. And in this case, did you do that? I did. Okay. What were your results? Let's first

talk about the scraper. The scraper, the latent print was what I classified as an impression, which means I couldn't tell if it was from a finger or a palm print. And I wasn't able to make a conclusive same source comparison in this case. What about the box 62.2? 62.2A was also an impression, which means I couldn't determine whether or not it was a finger or a palm. And I was not able to make a same-source conclusion for that impression. 62.2B and C were fingerprints, and I was able to say they were not made by the same source as the copies of finger impressions bearing the name DeSanne Bahena Rivera. All right. So you're provided with Mr. Bahena Rivera's fingerprints. Is that right?

I was. And you compared those fingerprints to 62.2B and 62.2C. Is that right? I compared them to all four of them. But in reference to 62.2B and 62.2C, you were able to eliminate Kristen Bahena Rivera as a source of those prints. Is that correct? They were not made by the same source. No further questions. Thank you. Mr. Brown, you may cross-examine. Ms. Young, did you assist in attempting to obtain the fingerprints off of a body later known as Molly Tibbetts? I did. Describe for the jury what you did in an attempt to get identifiable

fingerprints off of Molly Tibbetts' body. I proceeded to the medical examiner's office twice in an attempt to gain her, Ms. Tibbetts' known fingerprints. Ms. Tibbetts' remains were not in a condition where I was able to obtain any known prints from her. So you weren't ever able to get the known fingerprints of Molly Tibbetts, correct? I was not. And as far as you know, they did not exist anywhere in any system that you had access to to do any type of comparison. Would that be also true? Not to my knowledge. The two prints that were suitable for identification that you found on items in the trunk of the black Chevy Malibu were on fishing equipment? Would that be a fair characterization? Three of them were on the

plastic box that contained fishing equipment. Can you tell the jury when a fingerprint is placed upon any item? I cannot. And is it very possible that the prints that you identified on the plaque or the plastic box could have been placed there weeks or even months before they could there's an identifiable print on an object like the fishing box how is that print how would it be destroyed it could be destroyed numerous ways repetitive touching is one if someone picks up something the same way over and over again if a surface is smeared or if it's been cleaned if it's been left out in the elements those are some some variables that can go into whether or not it stays for a particular period of time and if it's protected from those elements how long

can a fingerprint stay on any given item indefinitely and are you aware ms young that molly tibbets has been associated with the trunk of the black malibu where the items that you tested came from? I have, yes. Is it very possible, in your opinion, that Molly Tibbetts could have touched those things while in the trunk and you have nothing to compare it to? Is that possible? It's possible. That's all I have. Thank you. Any redirect? Yes. Ma'am, it's also possible that another person could have touched that item in the trunk, isn't it? It's possible. Now, the fingerprints that were submitted on behalf of Christian, Bahena, Rivera were not of good quality. Is that correct? They were not complete known impressions. What do you mean by that?

I mean that the entire portions of the palms and the fingers were not recorded adequately to make a determination as to whether or not they came from the same source. You noted in your report that clear and complete major case prints are necessary to complete the entire comparison. Isn't that right? That's correct. And so specifically, did you communicate with investigators saying if you had better prints, you might be able to get more information? I communicated through my report. Were any other fingerprint cards submitted in reference to Christian Bahena Rivera? No, they were not. Now, if further prints had been submitted, you would have compared those. Isn't that right? That's correct. And so you could have further

examined the evidence and looked at it to see if my client's prints matched those for identification. Is that correct? I could have done additional comparisons. Along with that is if other fingerprints on behalf of other possible suspects were submitted, you could compare those for identification. Isn't that right? That's correct. But where we stand here, we don't know who made the prints that are in the trunk. Is that correct? That's correct. No further questions. Mr. Brown, anything else to this witness? No, Your Honor. Fenton Recall, Dalton Jack. Good afternoon, Mr. Jack.

Good afternoon. You testified here a few days back, correct? Yes. Had a chance to reflect on that testimony? No. You haven't thought about what you had to say? No. I'm sorry, you had to speak up some.

Oh, sorry, no. So there's nothing about your testimony here in open court the other day you wished to clarify, correct? No, I'm clarified. Mr. Jack, I want to expand on a few things we talked about the other day. Is that okay with you? Yes. The first thing I want to talk about, Mr. Jack, is Molly Tibbetts herself. Tell me first, if you would, describe in your own words Molly Tibbetts.

She was a happy, bubbly, goofy person that just everybody kind of got along with. I'm sorry I didn't hear that last part. Everybody got along with her? Everybody got along with her? Yeah, for the most part, yeah. She was kind? Yes. Kind to everybody she met?

Yes. Did you know her to have an enemy? No. Did you know her to have any confrontations with anyone? No. How about strangers? How does she treat people she never met before? She was nice to strangers.

You've had a long time to think about this and think about Molly's loss of life. Can you think of anyone who would have wanted to visit her or any harm? No. Would you agree with me that she was the kind of person who always put a best face on for others? Absolutely, yes. She always wanted to make those around her feel better, right? Yes. And she always wanted to appear happy, right?

Yes. If somebody needed a hand, she was always there to offer it? Yes. Whether she knew you or didn't know you, she was always willing to help, right? Yes. Describe Molly's physical stature. I mean, she was small, right? Yeah, she was a very small individual.

Okay, when you say very small, I mean, how tall was she? 5'2", 5'3". And do you know her weight? 130-ish pounds. Okay, so she was a small woman, small framed. Yes. Was she the kind of person who, though, if she were attacked, would be one to fight back? I mean, anybody would, but yeah.

She was spunky? Yeah. Okay. Now, again, you can't think of anybody in this world who would want to visit harm upon this particular individual, right? No, sir. and do you know her as well as anyone in your opinion yeah okay when she would go jogging anyone ever stop and just talk to her not that she'd ever mentioned before okay well if someone

was stopping to talk to her when she was out on a jog around Brooklyn is she the kind of person who would have a conversation with someone she would talk to him yeah whether she knew him or not? Yeah most likely. Would that even translate to someone out on a country road? I would imagine so yes. So if someone comes up to her on a country road and wants to talk to her she's the kind of person that would strike up a conversation? She wouldn't strike up the conversation but yeah she would have a conversation with that person. Okay so knowing what you know about Molly Tibbetts if she were out on a country road jogging and someone comes up and talks to her she's the kind of person who would stop and have a conversation with that person she would she would stop and say

at least hello yes she wouldn't immediately get scared or angry would she no she wouldn't immediately get confrontational would she not objects calls for speculation sustained based upon your experience and knowing molly do you think she would be the kind of person that would do that she wouldn't objection the same question overruled the witness may answer if he knows She wouldn't do any of that unless she was provoked to. Okay. And how long did you know Molly before she disappeared? We had been dating for three years, but we went to a very small school,

so we'd known each other, or at least of each other, for a very long time. What was a very long time, Mr. Jack? I believe she moved from California to Brooklyn in the fourth grade, and I was a year older than her, so since the fifth, we would have known of each other. Okay, so fourth grade is, help me here, nine years old? I don't know either. I'm gonna be real. You knew her for probably at least 10 years, right? Yes. And she didn't become this nice, happy person overnight, did she? No. She was always this way. Am I right? For as long as I can remember, yes. And you said she wouldn't do this

as far as getting angry unless she was provoked. Is that, is my understanding correct? Yes. In the 10 years you knew her, tell me how many times you saw her get provoked? I mean, so I'd like to reframe and say that I didn't, you know, hang out with her very often or know her that well outside of the three years that we dated, so I can't speak on those seven years, but one of those three years that we were together, not very often. Less than five? I'd say that's fair, yeah.

Zero probably. Yeah. No one ever provoked Molly. He's already asked and answered the question. Overruled, the witness can answer and then we'll move on. No one ever provoked Molly in the three years you were together, right? I mean, not to my knowledge, I guess.

She was one who liked to deescalate situations, didn't she? I don't object again, this is ask and answer, same ground we're plowing again. The question has not been asked and answered, so it's overruled. Go ahead and answer if you know the answer. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

Can you read it back, please? who liked to de-escalate situations, didn't she? Yes, I would say so. In your relationship with Molly, like any relationship, there's usually one personality who's a little stronger than the other personality. Would you agree that that was kind of your relationship with Molly? I guess so, yeah. Would you describe yourself as the stronger personality or the weaker personality?

In terms of what? Would you get angry more than Molly? Yeah. And how would Molly respond to you those times that she would get angry? Or you would get angry, I'm sorry. I mean, she would try to calm me down, that's for sure. Sure. And that was her nature, right?

Yes. Even when you had done something that clearly was wrong to her, she always took the high road. Is that a fair statement? I don't remember any instances when that was the case, but yeah. Okay. And we'll talk about those in a bit. Now, it's your testimony, Mr. Jack, that you had nothing to do with Molly Tibbetts' abduction. Is that what I am to understand?

Yes. You had nothing to do with Molly Tibbetts' death, right? Correct. You loved her too much, is that right? That, and I wouldn't harm her or any innocent person, but yes. You two were going to get married, is that right? Yes. Did she know this?

Yeah. Okay, what were the plans? Plans were my brother's wedding was to be in Punta Cana. I don't remember the exact date, but it was August. We had already gotten passports and everything to go down there. And, like, I was going to propose on the beach down while at Blake's wedding. So, did Molly know you were going to propose on the beach? Yeah, I kind of jumped the gun on that one in bed and I just, like, spilled the beans.

To Molly? Yes. And when and where did you spill the beans? I mean, in my bed at Blake's house. When? I don't remember the exact time, but it was shortly after they had made the plans to do the wedding down in Putakana. Okay. And when were the plans made for the wedding in Putakana with Blake and Allie?

That was Blake and Allie's wedding plans in general. They were doing a destination wedding, and the whole family was going down there to watch them get married. Sure, sure, sure. What I'm trying to figure out is when were the plans made by you to propose to Molly on the beach and you spilled the beans? Was it a year before Molly's death? Was it two years before Molly's death? Oh, I'm sorry, sir. I don't know the exact timeline on that.

It was probably under a year. Okay. And Molly said yes? Yes. You bought her a ring? Yes. An engagement ring? Yeah.

And where'd you buy it? K. Julie's. Okay. And was she wearing it? No. Where were you keeping it? At the house. Okay.

What'd you pay for it? $2,500-ish. Okay. And you'll agree with me that during that year between when the beans were spilled and Molly disappeared, you and Molly's relationship went up and down several times, right? Correct, yes. You guys talked about breaking up a number of times, right? Correct, yes.

And the most recent time you talked about breaking up was the end of June, one month before she disappeared, right? I don't recall, but if that's on a record somewhere, then I would agree, yes. Okay. How many television interviews did you give after Molly's disappearance, Mr. Jack? I don't know if Jack's irrelevant. Overruled at this time, we'll see. I don't have an answer to that.

It was a lot. I didn't keep count. Okay. when's the last time you talked to Jordan Lamb in terms of like talk no uh she messaged me about coming here to testify that was be the last time that I talked to her how'd she message you over snapchat she called you over snapchat yes and you two talked about your testimony no she just asked me why she was having to come here. That's about it. Okay. Now, Snapchat, you can call people like a telephone on Snapchat, right? Yeah, that was news to me too. I didn't know that. Okay. So

when you use Snapchat, you always did the like texting thing, right? Yeah. Never used it like a phone? No. Now, last week when you were here, you gave some testimony about after Molly disappeared and you realized that she was truly missing. Do you recall that testimony? I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? Sure. Last week when you were here testifying and you realized, truly realized, that she was missing, you took some action. Do you recall that testimony? I remember what I did whenever that happened, yes. Sure, sure.

What did you do? I immediately started making phone calls and getting people to try to check on her. Did you try to call Molly? Yes. How many times did you try to call Molly? I don't have an exact number for that. I'm sorry. Well, guess for me.

A guess would be completely inaccurate, but I'll give you maybe ten. Is it possible you only called Molly one time? Sure, yes. So, how many times did you text her? I also don't have a number for you on that one. So, if the records show you only called her one time, those would be the accurate number? Absolutely, yes. Explain to me why you only tried to call your girlfriend who was missing one time in the days following her disappearance.

I don't know. I've tried to get other people to look for her as well. She's the love of your life, right? Yes. And you're not blowing up her phone? I don't know if I did or not, but I don't know why I would only call her one time. Well, if I showed you your phone records,

would it refresh your recollection? Yes. Pressure approach? July 15, 2018 through July 19, 2018. Go ahead and take a look at those. in your phone you had a contact for molly right yep and what'd you call her baby girl so anytime you would call her or she would call you it would come up as baby girl correct so your phone records if they dumped your phone we should look for an outgoing call or an incoming call from

baby girl yes right and like when you're calling your dad it says dad right yes mom says mom right Yes. Okay. And you don't use your phone that much as a phone, do you? What do you mean? You're more of a texter. Yeah. I mean, not anymore, but yeah.

Okay. So, with that, I placed a document in front of you to refresh your recollection, Mr. Jack. You see that document? Yes. Are you able to read that document? The format's kind of weird, but I think I can piece it together for you, yeah. Okay. If you can piece it together for me, that's a phone record, correct?

Yeah. And that phone record shows the dates of 7-15-2018 through 7-19-2018, correct? I'm going to object to this witness using this as a reference. He's not an expert with regard to phone records. I'm not sure this, if he's going to refresh his memory, then he should allow it to refresh his memory instead of putting in what's in the document through testimony of a witness who clearly did not create it. Are you trying to refresh his memory? Yes.

Okay, we'll proceed that way then it refreshes your recollection. Mr. Jack. Yes. Has it done so? Sure. Yes Having your recollection refreshed now tell the jury how many times the name baby girl shows up on here Was highlighted once and check mark once you recall your testimony the other day about Jordan lamb Yes, you told mr. Brown That the relationship with Jordan lamb looks like a one-day thing, right? Yes. That's not true, is it?

What do you mean by that? You had more than one relationship, more than one time having a relationship with Jordan Lamb, right? Not to my recollection, by any means. You recall having conversations with Molly going back to early 2017 where she was angry with Jordan? Yes. And why was that? Because I'm on the director of relevance. Overruled.

Why was she angry with Jordan? i i don't know actually i even object to that on other grounds he can not speculate as to what molly tibbets may have fought that's what he's asking this uh young man we would object on speculation okay that's a different objection and that objection all sustained but you do acknowledge that molly was upset with jordan in sorry in as early as january of 2017 same objection. Given how the question is phrased, I'm going to overrule it, and again, the witness can answer if he knows. I don't know. In April of 2017, Molly was happy that you deleted Jordan off Snapchat. Do you recall that? No. You don't? Do you recall having a telephone or a text

conversation with Molly in April, specifically April 6th, 2017, where Molly said to you that she was definitely glad you deleted Jordan off Snapchat? I do. The calls for hearsay, it's also not relevant. Overruled. I do not remember that, sir. I showed you a record of that conversation where it refreshed

your recollection? Yes. Mr. Jack, is your recollection refreshed now? Yes. Molly said that to you? It's on a record for a text, yes. Okay. And does it refresh your recollection at all as to why she was upset?

She didn't seem upset in that text, Shane. Do you know why she said she was definitely glad you deleted Jordan on Snapchat? I was going to be in college for speculation. Sustained. Tell the jury how you responded to that comment. molly's said that she was glad that she deleted me off snapchat because jordan was wearing apparently a skimpy outfit and put on her story and that molly didn't want me seeing that and then i responded with shia ho and then the conversation then went from there okay you said

shia ho that is the exact verbiage that i just read on that sheet yes what does that mean i think that was just a slang term, I guess. I don't know how to put that. I don't understand. Saying that she was immorally in straight, I guess. An immoral woman? Sure. Was it a flattering comment?

It was not a flattering comment, no. And it's your testimony that she wasn't upset about the relationship between you and Jordan at this point? Objection, yes. Calls for speculation. Sustained. you recall buying molly a promise ring in may of 2017 yes you recall molly taking off that promise ring in june of 2017 yes i do why'd she take it off objections calls for speculation sustained

do you know why molly took it off different question and different ruling witness may And answer if he knows. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? Do you know why she took it off? Why she took off the promise ring? Yes. Because of the relationship with Jordan. What relationship with Jordan?

The one that had been previously stated of our affair, I guess you would call it. So you had a relationship with Jordan pre-June 2017? Objections. Asked and answered. Overall, I'll let the witness answer. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question again? Prior to June 2017, you had the sexual relationship with Jordan Lamb. Not sexual, no.

Okay. So Molly takes off the ring because of what relationship then with Jordan? It was like a texting, I guess, relationship. Tell us more about that. I don't remember the semantics of it, but we talked back and forth. What about? Anything, I guess. What's anything?

I mean, obviously it made Molly upset enough to take off her promise ring. Overruled. The witness may answer if he knows. I would love to give you an answer, sir, but I don't know. You don't recall? Don't recall. So when I asked you earlier about Molly's issues with Jordan

and you maybe having a relationship of some sort with Jordan going back to 2017, is your recollection refreshed now? i don't remember any other than like the one-time physical relationship with jordan i don't remember any other time that that happened well you were texting her in 2017 right yes and then in 2018 before molly goes to california you start texting her or snapchatting her again right yes and that's when it got physical right yes you had sex with her in 2018 right before molly went to california right i i don't know okay is it possible you had sex with her before then yes so this whole jordan thing has been going on for a year right strong

objection to the form of questions and has characterized what the witness has said so far with regard to his relationship with jordan lamb well i think the point is well taken i'm I'm going to sustain it, and Mr. Brees if you want to attempt to rephrase it, that's fine. So we know in 2017 Molly's upset with you because you're having some sort of relationship, whether it's texting or whatever with Jordan. And we know it happens again in 2018, right?

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? I couldn't hear you. Can you read it back? We know in 2017 Molly is upset with you because you're having some sort of relationship whether it is texting or And we know it happens again in 2018, right? Yes. So between June of 2017, when Molly takes the promise ring off,

tell us what the promise ring signifies. The promise ring signifies, like, it's not an engagement ring. It's like a precursor to an engagement ring, I guess, if that makes sense. You promised yourself to her. Yes. You gave her this ring and said, I'm yours and yours only, right? Yes. You gave her an oath of fidelity, right?

Yes. And then a month later, she finds out you weren't living up to that oath, right? Yes. Okay. Between the time she took her promise ring off and then following spring, when she goes to California, you and Jordan continued to have some sort of relationship, didn't you? I don't know. You're telling me you didn't text her or Snapchat her or nothing like that?

Not that I can recall at all. But you certainly did in April of 2018. You tried to strike up a new relationship with her, didn't you? Not that I can recall on that either. Well, in April of 2018, you and Molly had a text conversation where she got upset because Jordan screenshot something from her Snapchat story, right? Not that I recall, but I believe it, yeah. You don't recall having a conversation with Molly where she asked you,

yo, why did she screenshot this? No. You don't recall Molly saying to you she was about to get confrontational? No, I don't remember that either. I showed you a record of that conversation. Would it refresh your recollection? Yes. Does that refresh your recollection?

Yes. Having your recollection refreshed, do you now recall having a conversation on April 8, 2018, with Molly about Jordan snapshotting or screenshotting a Snapchat? I still don't remember the conversation in full, but, yeah, I remember that happening. And that conversation was about Jordan, right? Yes. And you told Maui that Jordan was crazy, right? Yes.

I want to object his irrelevance as well as hearsay on all of this. Overall, witness may answer. I'm sorry, can you repeat that question? You told Maui that Jordan was crazy, right? I don't know. I only read that front page, sir. I'm sorry. I didn't know how to answer it.

Should I show you the second page where it helped you? Yes. I'm not trying to cause problems up here. I'm sorry. Is your reflection refreshed? Yep. Sorry, yes. Now, was my recitation of what this conversation was about wrong?

No. So she was confronting you about Jordan screenshotting something, right? Yes. And correct me if I'm wrong, you had deleted Jordan off your Snapchat before, right? Yes. Now, tell us how Snapchat works. to for someone to see on snapchat you have to add them right that uh was through molly's snapchat she snapchatted molly's okay story not mine so you hadn't added her through snapchat uh not that

i can recall no okay because i'm looking at a comment here from you it says she added me again and snapped me some rude ass shit about me about i'm sorry what objective reading in contents of the record that is improper, it's hearsay. Sustained. Jack, I want you to read the first highlighted portion. Does that refresh your recollection? I suppose so. Well, yes or no?

Yes. So Snapchat works where someone can only communicate with you if you add them, right? Yes. And to add them, that takes an affirmative action by you, right? Yes. And you told Molly that she added you, and therefore you added her back, right?

You don't have to to be able to send messages. But you were communicating with her, weren't you? From the context of that text message, it sounded like she was just communicating with me. Okay. Well, the next day, Jordan was communicating with Molly, wasn't she? I don't recall, but... Just for clarification, what's the date that we're talking about here again? I don't believe they have a context, so I would object on that basis.

Well, I guess then I'll sustain the objection, and Mr. Fries, you can proceed at this point in time, but we need a date, some reference point that we're talking about. I had said April 8th, so now we're talking about April 9th. Molly and Jordan had talked, right? I don't recall you don't recall Jordan sending copies of messages to Molly no you don't recall Molly busting you with snapchat messages between you and Jordan sustained you don't recall Molly confronting you with messages sent to her by Jordan lamb of you and her talking I don't recall that no do you

deny sending messages to Jordan lamb while Molly was leaving for California in 2018 no I don't so you admit that you were having a text message or a snapchat conversation with Jordan lamb April 20th March and April 2018 I don't recall it so I'm not gonna remit it but I'm not gonna admit it but I'm not gonna deny it either but on April 8 2018 having your recollection refreshed you You didn't just come clean to Molly and say, I've been talking to Jordan, did you? Probably did not. Do you recall talking to Agent Matt George on July 27th?

That name doesn't ring a bell, no. Do you recall talking to DCI agents? Yes, I talked to a lot of them. Do you recall talking to the one who interviewed you last? No. Do you recall meeting with a DCI agent and them saying you didn't come forward to us originally with information about Jordan Lamb? Objection. Spouse for hearsay.

Sustained. Do you recall having a conversation with Agent Matt George on July 27, 2018? No. Do you recall telling him that you just came clean about Jordan Lamb right away to Molly? Objection. Spouse for hearsay. Overruled. No, I don't.

Okay. So if he testifies to that, his recollection would probably be more clear than yours, wouldn't it? Objection. Spouse for speculation as to what somebody else may have thought. Sustained. April 9th, 2018. You and Molly, you don't recall having a conversation with her about Jordan Lamb? No, sir.

You don't recall her asking if you wanted to be with Jordan over her? No, sir. Everybody objects. Calls for your city. Overruled. Go ahead. If I showed you a record of that, would that refresh your recollection? We'll find out, yes.

A simple yes will do. Okay. Mr. Jack, does that document refresh your recollection? That one does not refresh my recollection. I still don't remember any of that, but I clearly said or did it. Said or did what? I mean, that's my phone number on that page, and that's her phone number on that page, so that conversation is between us.

But you don't remember it? No, I don't remember it. Did you black it out? I just don't remember it. This is a day after the Jordan Lamb discussion, right? Yes, I believe that's what they're... Dates. Was she wearing her promise ring at this time?

I don't remember that either. Remember the other day we talked about whether or not you were known to get angry and fight, right? Yes. Now, whoever did this to Molly committed a very violent crime. Can we agree on that? Yes. And would you agree with me that the person that committed it was very angry? I don't know the mindset of the person that did it, but...

Anger could be one of those mindsets, couldn't it? Yes. At any point in the 12 months before Molly disappeared, did you ever tell her that you realized you were clinically insane? I have. It's not relevant. I'm not sure there's a time frame that's on it. If you did put one on it, I don't think it's relevant.

You referenced within the last year, correct? I did. Okay. Oh, injunctions overruled. I don't remember that at all either. Well, let's just pick this date, October 31, 2017. Did you mention to Molly that you have a temper? I don't remember.

Did you, on October 31, mention to Molly that a person can't tell until you see it in action? I think I'm on Jack's cause for hearsay, whether it's Dalton's statement or somebody else's. Sustained. Did you and Molly have a conversation that included those comments? I don't remember. Seeing a document that said that refresh your recollection? Yes. While we're looking for that, let's move on, Mr. Jack.

You recall in October 30, 2017, you and Molly's relationship kind of hit a real bump, didn't it? I don't recall that either. That's when she told you she was moving in with friends. Then, yeah, I remember. Did that upset you? Yes, it did. You told her you were angry about that. Yes.

She was ditching you. Yes. That's the term you used, right? Yes. And in that date you told her you were thinking about breaking up during college, right? I don't recall that at all. I want to show this document and have you look at it,

going back to the temper thing. Let me know if it refreshes your recollection, Mr. Jack. Judge, prior to doing that, can we get a date and time on this particular document he's showing him? October 31, 2017. Thank you. Does that document refresh your recollection? I do not remember the context in which that was said at all, sir.

Okay. Does it refresh your recollection? What is that? No. You don't recall telling Molly that you had a temper? No. You don't recall saying that's what makes you dangerous? No.

But the record says that. Do you deny the accuracy of the record? No. Do you deny it? Mr. Freeze, let me jump in here and stop you. We need to take a break. Mr. Freeze, you may continue. Thank you.

Mr. Jack, the other day you made an answer to a question posed by Mr. Brown, and your answer was you wholeheartedly think that my client's guilty, right? So I'm talking about Jack, actually. That's not in the purview of this witness, not Roland. Well, the answer's already been given, so I think the objection is untimely, given that we already have the answer in the record. So we can proceed, right? Yes.

Okay. And do you know Iris Gamboa? I graduated with her, yes. How well do you know Iris? Not very well. She testified here today that she said you're a racist. You share that opinion? No. You don't hold any anti-Mexican opinions?

No. Have you ever used derogatory language toward Hispanics? Not that I can remember, no. Have you ever used the term fucking dipshit Mexicans? So, I'm going to object to the ground once he's denied any comments. Sustained. If I showed you a document, phone records from October 26, 2017, would that refresh your recollection? Yes.

I'm going to object on the same grounds if that's what content of this is. Mr. Freese, not knowing what you're wanting to refresh him on, I would just ask you to keep in mind the court's previous ruling, and if you're going down that road, it's going to be the same ruling. I guess, of course, I'm somewhat vague on the court's statement there. Okay. Do you need the previous question and ruling read back to you? Can we approach? Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Friess.

Thank you. Now, Mr. Jack, you recall on July 6, 2018, 12 days prior to Molly's disappearance, having a conversation with her via text message indicating to her that you were madder than fuck for no reason? Do not recall that conversation. I showed you a text message report of that. Would it refresh your recollection? Yes. Judge, I'm not going to check on the basis of relevance.

Overruled. Go ahead. Does that refresh your recollection? I still don't remember the conversation, no. You're a smart guy, right? I'm not going to stroke my own ego here, but sure. You, in some of the interviews, said to agents that you had your college paid for because your ACT scores were so high, right? Yes.

How high were they? Sustained. Is there anything wrong with your memory organically? No. You don't have any illness? I've had multiple concussions. Okay. Is that affecting your memory, do you think?

I don't know. No. Okay. Has any doctor diagnosed you with any reason that you can't recall things? No. Do you recall the Snapchat message conversation with Jordan Lamb where you told her you wanted to get with her? No, I do not.

You don't recall saying to Jordan Lamb that if you do get together with her that you had to be quiet because you weren't going to jail because she was under 18? I've got to object. There's no time frame that's put on this that's not relevant at this point. I will sustain that, Mr. Fries. And, again, we need some more context to go forward. In March of or April of 2018, you don't recall having a Snapchat conversation with Jordan Lamb wherein you said? I'm not objecting to reading it into the record.

It's hearsay. If he wants to refresh his memory or ask me to have a conversation with him, that's fine. But reading it into the record in front of the jury is improper. First of all, Your Honor, I'm not reading anything into a jury. I'm asking a question. with that then i mean mr brown's point is well taken but i did not think or see that you were reading so with that you may proceed do you recall a text message conversation where you sent actually a snapchat conversation where you sent a message to the effect of you weren't going to

jail if you and jordan got back together because she was under 18 and her parents hated you i still Absolutely not recall that, no. You would agree with me that those records exist, they speak for themselves? Yes. And if the record exists, that would be a more accurate recitation than your memory? Yes.

Do you ever tell anybody you black out when you get angry? Objections is asked and answered prior to the break. Overruled. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? Have you ever told anyone at any time on this planet that That you black out when you get angry? Don't recall. If there's a record that says that, would you agree with me that that record is more accurate than your recollection?

Absolutely, yes. You may have answered this before, and I do apologize. Ulysses Felix, you knew him, right? Yes. Agents, when they were questioning you, asked you about a $200 cash withdrawal Molly took out the night before she disappeared. Do you recall that? Don't recall that. It's irrelevant.

Overruled. Do you recall that? I do not recall that. Do you recall Molly purchasing a mattress within a couple days before she disappeared? Dr. Rollins. Overruled. No, I don't. You don't recall giving Molly the information for the mattress guy in Grinnell a couple days before she disappeared?

No, I don't. You don't recall Shane Slaymaker giving you the information for the mattress guy so Molly could buy a mattress? No, I do not. And again, if there's records on that, those would be more accurate than your recollection? Absolutely, yes. Do you recall telling agents that you thought the $200 was for your golf tournament that Molly would have put up the greens fees for? I also do not recall that, no.

But you recall you were in Dubuque on that night, right? Yes. Clear as a bell? Yes. Were you drunk? I don't recall that either, but I would imagine that I was drinking, yes, sir. Okay. That's all I have.

Mr. Brown, questions of this witness? Let's talk about your job that Mr. Freeze just raised, okay? Okay. Where were you working? Dubuque. Okay, what company were you working for? I was working for Jasper Construction. And what job did you do for Jasper Construction?

We worked on roads and bridges, but I was a laborer. Okay. Full-time job? Yes. And do you work long days? Yes. Sometimes 12-hour days, correct? Yes.

A lot of those jobs for Jasper Construction were away from Brooklyn. is that right? Yes. All right, this particular week that you were working for Jasper Construction, the week that would include Wednesday, July 18th of 2018, where was the job specifically? In Dubuque. And even more specifically than Dubuque, where at near Dubuque were you working? I don't remember the name of the highway, but it was the bridge that goes over the Mississippi River to Wisconsin. Okay. You left for that job on Monday, July 16th. Is that right? Yes. And you would have driven there in your pickup truck?

Yes. Is that the only vehicle that you utilized at that time? Yes. All right. Was it a truck that you were making payments on? Yes, it was. And that's why you were working is to pay your bills, right, Mr. Jack? Yes.

You tried college for a year and decided that wasn't for you? Correct, yes. Right. And so now you were working full-time for Jasper Construction as a road construction crew member. Yes. Nick Wilson was your supervisor? Yes. Is that somebody that you got along with? Yeah, me and Nick got along great.

Okay. The crew that was working in Dubuque on the week that would include Wednesday, July 18th of 2018, there were five members of that crew plus Nick. Would that be true? Yes. And there was a second crew that had been assigned to work this same bridge area with you and your crew that week. Is that right? Yes. Would Nick Wilson have been the job foreman or crew foreman for that crew as well, or do you know? No, that one was under a different supervisor. So two different supervisors were with you in Dubuque, both that worked for Jasper Construction.

Is that right? as well as two separate crews that had been assigned to work in Dubuque for that particular week that included July 18th of 2018. Yes. Whenever you typically went on jobs like this would you stay overnight in a motel? Yes we would. And was this particular trip to Dubuque on July 18th of 2018 was it any different than any other trip? No it was not. Did you see Molly Tibbetts prior to leaving for the job on early Monday of July 16th of 2018 well we slept in the same bed so yeah when I got up she was staying with you and Blake and Allie at 622 West Des Moines in Brooklyn yes just there was a refresher he had two dogs that were there yes and was she house sitting as well

as taking care of the dogs while both while both you and Blake were away working yes Blake was a construction worker also is that right correct yes he was working in where in newton that that week or do you even remember i don't remember where he was working though ali it was his fiance at the time correct ali houghton yes so whenever you left brooklyn to go to your job working for jasper on july 16th of 2018 you left molly yes and that was the last time that you would have been in her presence prior to her death. Is that true? Correct, yes. Drove your pickup to Dubuque? Yes. How long did it take you to get from Brooklyn to the job site at the river? Over two hours. Okay, and was it closer to maybe two and a half hours to the job site? I suppose so, yes. Okay,

you didn't keep track of your time, is that right? I didn't keep track of the time. The supervisor, Nick Wilson, kept track of the time. Okay, that's a good point. Nick Wilson would keep your hours that you worked is that correct yes he would log them in is that right yes there's no way for you to do that on your own no and was there another man that went with you on july 16 2018 going to dubuque to work on this job site yes and who was that luis i don't remember his last name was luis someone that worked with you on at jasper yes other than the job at dubuque yes And he needed a ride? Yeah, he just needed a ride up.

And you gave it to him, right? Yeah. At any time, Mr. Jack, prior to Thursday afternoon, did you leave and go back to Brooklyn, Iowa? No. Were you ever in the presence of Molly Tibbetts after early Monday morning, July 16th of 2018? No. Directing your attention to when July 18 of 2018, I believe you previously testified that you had worked the whole day. Is that right?

Correct, yes. Would that be from 6 a.m. to about 6 p.m.? Around about, yes. Okay, and other people on the job site, including Nick Wilson, you would have been around them that entire day, is that right? Yes. And you did have some communication with Molly that you testified to earlier, is that correct? Yes. All right. After the day ended, after the work day ended, did you go back to the motel?

Yes. Did you shower up or clean up in any way? Yes. All right. So whenever you got back to the motel that night, regardless of what you did, you were around other people on your crew. Is that right? Yes. At the hotel? Yes. And it included Nick Wilson, at least for part of the evening?

Yes. on the evening of july 18th of 2018 did you drive back to brooklyn iowa was july 18th the wednesday wednesday correct oh sorry no i did not all right that was the day you worked a full day is that right yes okay the next day thursday july 19th of 2018 you had weather problems is that correct yes so when you're on a road crew weather problems stop the job is that right yes so you go back to the hotel that you were staying at. Is that correct? Yes. And you made some attempts to reach Molly Tibbetts on July 19th of 2018. Is that right? Yes. And were those successful? No. You've talked about one text message, I think, or maybe phone call. I can't remember. There was one of

those. Is that correct? Yes. And did you try to, did you make any attempts to reach her in any other way by calling her friends or calling other people that knew her? Yes, I did. All right. So like somebody like Emily Fenner, do you know that person? Yes. That's a friend of Molly's, is that right? Yes. Did you talk to Emily Fenner? Yes. You were trying to find Molly, is that right? Yes. Did you start to become worried? Yes, I did. And then did that cause you to want to come home? Yes. And did you express that worry to Nick Wilson or anyone else on the crew that you were working on yes i did so was it to nick yes because that's the guy who's going to let you come home right nick is going to be the one to to let you leave early yeah nick was the boss okay so you

were supposed to work on friday yes right and then you came home because you couldn't get a hold of molly correct and you got home sometime that night is that right yes discussed a lot with Mr. Freeze about this relationship that you had with Jordan. Yes. Molly was aware of the relationship. Is that correct? Yes, she was. And despite knowing about it, your relationship with her continued. Yes. And you were still making plans to propose marriage to her in August of 2018 in the Dominican Republic at your brother's wedding? Yes, I was. That wedding never happened, did it?

No, it did not. Because Molly had disappeared, is that right? Yes. So it got canceled? Yes, Blake and Ellie canceled their wedding. Mr. Jack, the truck that you drove, you allowed police to search, is that correct? Yes, I did. You took it to the Brooklyn Fire Department, is that right?

Yes. And you just handed it over to them? Yes. Did you stay there while they searched it? No, I did not. You left it there for a period of time? Yes. All right.

Did you make any effort to try to do anything to the truck to alter it in any way? No, I did not. Did you ever try to prevent the officers from searching in any particular locations in the truck? No, I did not. Molly had actually ridden in that truck before. Is that right? Many times, yes. She'd ridden in the cab of that truck with you?

Yes. But you made no effort to conceal anything from the officers. Is that right? No, I did not. You were cooperative? Yes. Do you own a black Malibu? No, I do not.

Do you have access to a black Malibu? No, I do not. How about a black Malibu with a chromed mirror and chromed handles? No, I do not. How about a black Malibu with a chromed mirror, chromed handles, and spoked wheels? Objection asked and answered. Technically, that question has not been asked and answered, so the witness can go ahead and answer. Can you repeat the question? I'm sorry.

Do you own or have access to a black Malibu that has chrome mirrors, chrome handles, or spoked wheels? No, I do not. Was your vehicle seen in the area where Molly Tibbetts was running on July 18th of 2018, to your knowledge? Objection. Call for speculation. To his knowledge, Judge. Overruled then? No.

Have you ever admitted that you were in Brooklyn, Iowa on July 18th of 2018 near where Molly Tibbetts was observed running? No, I have not. Have you ever made any statements, Mr. Jack, placing you on 385th Avenue east of Brooklyn on July 18th of 2018 in the evening hours? No, I have not. You are now aware that Molly Tibbetts was killed. Is that right? Yes. You are now aware that her body was found in a cornfield at 2478 460th Avenue. Is that correct?

Yes. Did you take officers to that location to find Molly Tibbetts? No, I did not. Did you place corn stalks on her body in order to conceal her from anyone that may be looking? No, I did not. Mr. Jack, did you have anything at all to do with the disappearance or murder of Molly Tibbetts? No. That's all I have.

Mr. Freese? Molly didn't know that you and Jordan had sex, did she? Objections calls for speculation. Overruled witness may answer if he knows. Yes, she definitely did. Do you recall telling agents when you were interviewed that Molly didn't know that you and Jordan had sex? No. Do you recall telling agents that if Molly would have found out that you and Jordan had sex,

she definitely would have broken up with you? No. If there's a recording to that effect, that would be the best evidence of that comment? Yes. Nick Wilson's your supervisor, right? Correct, yes. Nick Wilson stays in the hotels with you, right? Correct, yes.

And he's the one that you had to get permission from on Thursday to come back to Brooklyn, right? Correct, yes. Is he the same supervisor who was drunk and you had to take to the convenience store to buy cigarettes? Objection. That's not relevant. Sustained. You testified the other day you had to take someone to the convenience store to get cigarettes before you left for Brooklyn, right? I don't think I ever testified that.

Did you ever tell that to Matt George? I'm sorry? Did you ever tell that same information to Matt George? Not that I can recall, no. Was Nick Wilson drunk on that Thursday? Not that I can recall. Does he drink with you guys in the evening? Yes.

Does he drink to the point of intoxication? I mean, we all did. And you'd agree with me that the statements you gave to officers regarding your activities and whereabouts on that July 18 and July 19 were pretty sketchy? Object is argumentative. Overruled, but since the court doesn't understand the question, I'm going to ask that you rephrase it. How's that? The details were few and far between as far as the specificity of your activities on the evenings of July 18 and July 17 to investigating agents, right? I thought they were pretty clear.

You couldn't recall what night you got drunk and what night you stayed in the room, could you? I don't recall even saying that. And you're certain you worked on Monday the 16th? Yes. Positive? Yes. Your work records will show that? Yes.

If your phone records indicate that you were home on the 16th, do you have any explanation for that? No. You sent Molly a text message at 8-18 on July 18, 2018, that said my phone data straight up won't work. Do you recall that? Yes. And she didn't respond, did she? No, she did not. And that is something you recalled since the last time we were here in court?

I'm sorry? That's something you recalled since the last time you testified? I don't understand the question, I guess. Did I ask you that question the other day, Mr. Jack? Yes. And you didn't recall it then? I don't know if I recalled it then. So is Mr. Wilson going to come in here and tell us that you were in Dubuque?

Is that the deal? Objections, calls for speculation on behalf of this witness. Sustained. That's all I have. Mr. Brown, anything else to this witness? That's all.