AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #21

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
mamamia54 said:
Actually someone else posted about it awhile back and I don't think it came from the documents because I read all of them also. Not certain where that came from but I remember reading it, maybe it was in an article that someone else can remember.
Click to expand...

Here's your post about the screen on the ground (remember when you were soooo upset that it was in the "backyard") yet it is under Isa's window:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - AZ Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 Media & Document Dump (No Discussion)


SEE packet #5 page 69 about the "scrunched" screen.

Everyone seems to have run amok for some odd reason. JMO.
 
marazul said:
I am not as informed as I should be about the laws regarding released SOs, but my limited knowledge leads me to feel like there should be different laws for the severity of the offense. Too many 19 year old boys with 16 year old consenting girlfriends are getting lumped in with 40 year old men that molest 5 year old girls...not even the same crime IMO
Click to expand...

I agree. Urinating in public makes you an SO, (My state anyways.) and should not be lumped with molesters.
 
So, my post above stands, and I remember saying that if the screen was crunched outward, could Isa have been kicking, but as it stands right now, I just think that someone punched it out, and it just seems staged to me. MOO
 
azmary said:
Yes and le said they did a good job of covering up. So they know there is a cover up going on. imo
Click to expand...



The words "cover up" were never used.

Lt. Pacheco was responding to a question about being stumped.

"Whoever is involved did an adequate job of really covering a lot of things that we could possibly look at."
http://www.kvoa.com/videos/police-say-whoever-did-this-did-an-adequate-job/

There is a difference IMO

Any perp usually makes some attempt of covering tracks IMO by wearing gloves or a mask, etc. Do we call this a "cover up"?
 
Dad was the last one to see Isabel that we know, and he was the first one to notice she was "adbucted."

His 911 call is off-the-charts hinky.

His emotion in the first public plea for his daughter seems forced and off, IMO. (And before anyone jumps on me because "we can't judge how people grieve," please remember that the FBI has an entire dvision that judges people's behavior against a norm, and they are on this case).

HE now can't have any contact with his boys.

His statements to LE have been "inconsistent."

The family has still not been "cleared."

What I am having trouble with is reconciling the immediate search for a dead child in a landfill after dogs were brought in, which makes me assume there was a cadaver hit in the home or around it; and LE's most recent announcements that they expect Isabel to be found alive. Did they at first think that the blood in her room was recent and related and now have found out it's not? But then again, they were searching a wash as recently as last week.

LE's actions tell me this child is dead. But if so, who were they talking to during today's interview with KGUN when they urged anyone who knew what happened to "just call."

Were they talking to RC?
 
I think it will be telling to see how long this "voluntary" request to stay away from his children, including any contact, lasts. What if this case drags on for months and months, or worse, longer? At some point, it needs to become an official mandate, or be allowed to "expire".

I cannot believe that a statement or two to the boys, i.e. from Sergio, in any event, would result in this current restriction. I can't helping thinking of Lisa Irwin practically admitting she was smashed on wine when her baby disappeared, and CPS did not take any action as far as I know, or make any "requests." What on earth could this be...
 
mamamia54 said:
So, my post above stands, and I remember saying that if the screen was crunched outward, could Isa have been kicking, but as it stands right now, I just think that someone punched it out, and it just seems staged to me. MOO
Click to expand...

Would like to follow along (dumb me) where was it ever stated scruched or crunched OUTWARD? TIA. Still can find that.
 
How do you put someone on ignore on this forum? Or is it even possible? TIA!
 
With shoe prints surviving the weather on other surfaces...none by Isabels window...the perp did not enter or exit with Isa there. imo
 
Prof said:
The words "cover up" were never used.

Lt. Pacheco was responding to a question about being stumped.

"Whoever is involved did an adequate job of really covering a lot of things that we could possibly look at."
http://www.kvoa.com/videos/police-say-whoever-did-this-did-an-adequate-job/

There is a difference IMO

Any perp usually makes some attempt of covering tracks IMO by wearing gloves or a mask, etc. Do we call this a "cover up"?
Click to expand...
I didn't quote anyone. An my take on it is they covered up what they did. To me that indicates a cover up. So I agree to disagree with you.
 
pieper4 said:
How do you put someone on ignore on this forum? Or is it even possible? TIA!
Click to expand...

Go to your user CP waaaay at the top. Click on that. Then go to "edit ignore list". Click on that. Type in the user name that you want to ignore. HTH and if it's me ...:seeya: lol
 
And yes, I read it wrong, it didn't say outward. Sorry That's all you had to state, that it didn't say anything about it being crunched either inward or outword. I'm attempting to keep all the facts straight.
 
I know you are not talking about the tunnels under Park Mall; neither am I. There is a tunnel that begins just to the west of the apartment complex just south of the church. That tunnel runs under Craycroft and then continues on something of a diagonal under Williams Center and Broadway, then exits just to the northeast of the Target, on Beverly.
I'm pretty sure they checked that because I remember the phrase 'nearly to Rosemont...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 90 more.
Total: 2,006 (members: 91, guests: 1,915)

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
1,915
Total visitors
2,006
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,111
Messages
18,118,629
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top