AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #13

[nobodynoz]

Without going on and on about it, I'll just retiterate that I think the no contact development does indeed have something to do with Isabele's disappearance and it is my belief that one of the boys knows something and has been threatened by Sergio or FEELS threatened. Perhaps that child fears for his life and thus the separation.

I also fully expect the results of the lie detector tests to be leaked to and confirmed by MSM by the end of the week, since there is already chatter about the results in cyberspace.

And that will probably be followed by a debate here about how LDT's aren't reliable, lol.

And maybe that will be followed by a confession...

Followed by a debate here on how it was coerced...

LOL, Lark, not to worry. It seems to me from my limited experience here at WS that those of us here who are skeptical about polygraphs are pretty much in the minority anyway.

 

[deelytful1]

It bothers me that we were led to believe all this time that they were all together as a "family" unit and they were not... makes me really start questioning everything...

Child Protective Services in Arizona removed the two older brothers of missing girl Isabel Celis from their father&#8217;s care on May 11 and sent the boys, <modsnip> 10, and <modsnip>, 14, to live with their mother, Becky.

http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2012/0...ng-brothers-removed-from-father-sergio-celis/

 

[pieper4]

It bothers me that we were led to believe all this time that they were all together as a "family" unit and they were not... makes me really start questioning everything...

http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2012/0...ng-brothers-removed-from-father-sergio-celis/

That comes from a not very reputable tabloid-y source (Daily Mail UK).

Caught my eye, too, but appears to be a poor source.

 

[cj1132]

Many scenarios of the reason for the no contact order have been discussed and most likely, one of them may be correct. However, I'll throw another scenario out there. "Maybe" one of the boys had a friend or was befriended by someone who was interested in Isabel. That person could have been snuck into the house by the boys after the parents went to bed. That person could have also been invited into the house by the boys during the day and without anyone's knowledge, left a door unlocked. That person could have snuck in after everyone was sleeping and took Isabel. Sergio could be furious with one or both of the boys and blame them for what happened to Isabel. Their safety could be threatened by this and Sergio can no longer have contact. Just a possibility. JMO MOO etc.

 

[LisaB]

According to an interview, mom and dad have taken a poly but no results were revealed. And I would think that if they passed, the parents would have said so during that interview. So I am thinking one of them did not pass.

I know RC said she was there that night when Isa went to bed, but to me that doesn't mean that she stayed the entire night. Unless LE said she had which I don't think I've heard or read in the press conferences, etc. Has LE said RC was there that entire night?

Assuming for a moment they were separated when Isa vanished. They have said Becky was asleep before Isa and left without checking on her in the morning. Maybe she slept elsewhere that night since the kids had a game, and LE knows this but putting her "asleep" was to cover the fact she was not there since their church would not necessarily approve, and they may not have even told family yet.

 

[MvD]

Fwiw, I'm leaning toward the idea that RC did not spend the night at the house on 12th the night Isabel went missing... Would explain the weird 'not a custody issue' made early on. I also believe one of the main reasons police were asking for photos/videos of the game that night is to establish Isabel was actually there... to help narrow down the timeline in which something happened to Isabel. I've heard that someone gave Isa water at the game when she was choking on some food..but police probably would like something more concrete, like video, to verify Isabel was actually there. I've also wondered if RC was advised by LE fairly early on to 'go along' with pretense of supporting SC.. Might explain why she looks like its downright painful for her to be near him. Just some random thoughts that have been popping in my head.

 

[deelytful1]

That comes from a not very reputable tabloid-y source (Daily Mail UK).

Caught my eye, too, but appears to be a poor source.

So you're saying it's not true? I thought this is what you guys have been discussing? (Sorry just got back from Mother's Day festivities) No other articles claim this? I'll have to look...

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Assuming for a moment they were separated when Isa vanished. They have said Becky was asleep before Isa and left without checking on her in the morning. Maybe she slept elsewhere that night since the kids had a game, and LE knows this but putting her "asleep" was to cover the fact she was not there since their church would not necessarily approve, and they may not have even told family yet.

I have been puzzled since the beginning of this case with the comment from TPD that they "did not think that this was a custody issue because the parents were together." I dunno. I can't help wondering why custody concerns were even mentioned :waitasec: Just seemed strange to me at the time and still does. :moo:

 

[Prof]

Yes. weirdly worded. It does seem to imply that LE thought it was an inside job, and they hoped the FBI would not agree.

I think it was weirdly quoted as a sound bite, rather than weirdly worded. I think that it can be a real problem when things are taken out of context by reporters. When I watched the press conference live, where he made that statement, he explained explained that maybe a different set of eyes could see something that they are not seeing, hopefully giving them more leads.

He did not imply anything other than they would like any type of break or lead in the case, and was still stressing that they were looking at all avenues.


Presser on April 25th 8 pm

http://www.kvoa.com/videos/raw-video-8-p-m-isabel-celis-update-from-tucson-police/
Video that describes what BAU is doing

http://www.kvoa.com/videos/police-give-update-on-missing-girl-case/

I think the quote was taken from an earlier presser on the 25th, as far as I remember. KOVA was not consistent in getting the raw videos uploaded.

 

[azmary]

I wonder if they have positive info , now that they had time to review video tapes of the area.

 

[callyn]

Sergio...gambler professional...
Could explain no ID of present or any jobs to speak of.
JMO JMO
ETA... And could cause HUGE debts to nefarious people.
JMO JMO

Sergio has a job. It's been thoroughly discussed here. He is an assistant in an oral surgery office.

 

[LisaB]

Is the purpose of taking them each back to the home, individually, to be interviewed to help them recall things more easily being in the environment?

I mean that seems logical to me I suppose, but why the media show accompanied with it? Couldn't they have just as easily interviewed them separately at the police station if they needed/wanted to?

What was the purpose of going back to the home the way they did and the item brought out from the trunk???

IMO it is easy to get "stories" straight, but by taking them in one by one and having them go over it again asking specific questions "where were you standing when he said this" and "was he already dressed or in pajamas at that point?" and the stories did not match up when the other party was asked. Acting it out the same way without anyone there to cue you would be harder than sticking to a script.

 

[deelytful1]

Calls to Sergio Celis and his wife -- who are no longer living together -- were not returned today. Other family members reached by phone refused to comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/isabel-cel...s-removed-care/story?id=16334922#.T7ArEMWlGzI

okay WOW... there should seriously be laws against misleading people.. who the he!! can ya believe??? :sigh:

 

[callyn]

Very well said and I agree. I think LE said today that this CPS action is not to be intended as them casting suspicion on anyone in particular so I am sticking by my original belief that Sergio is likely not handling the stress well and could be having trouble dealing with his emotions and therefore acting out towards the boys in such a way that CPS became concerned and needed to get him away so he could clear his head and deal with his problems.


I may be wrong but until I see evidence that he is a gay degenerate gambler hanging out with human traffickers and cartel drug dealers I will with hold further judgment.

BBM:
:floorlaugh: Thanks Paximus, ITA

 

[jennapuppy]

Assuming for a moment they were separated when Isa vanished. They have said Becky was asleep before Isa and left without checking on her in the morning. Maybe she slept elsewhere that night since the kids had a game, and LE knows this but putting her "asleep" was to cover the fact she was not there since their church would not necessarily approve, and they may not have even told family yet.

Let's assume that this facade was for the benefit of the children, to shield them from the truth while BC and SC decided how to proceed in their relationship. Why would you need to lie about that to LE? If BC wasn't even in the home overnight, why lie about that?

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

That comes from a not very reputable tabloid-y source (Daily Mail UK).

Caught my eye, too, but appears to be a poor source.

O/T I think you are being too kind. I would rate the Daily fail below a one man blog personally.

News International are on "trial" here at the minute with the Leveson enquiry. The Daily Mail isn't any better.

 

[PAXIMUS]

LDT work on all the wrong people, regular people like most of you, sure, you are generally emotional and nervous about lying and it will show accordingly. But they dont work on sociopaths and others with personality disorders very often and they certainly should never be admissible in court in front of a jury, no place for quack science in a court room.

 

[LisaB]

I think the confusion comes with Exactly WHO you are mandated to report the abuse to. I was a classified school employee, in the public schools. I worked in the office and the health office and on the playground. So I had a lot of close contact and heard and saw a lot of stuff that concerned me. But I was mandated to report any evidence of abuse or neglect to my superiors. Specifically the principal. We had one case of a set of twins being raised by their single father, and they were always hungry and dirty and disheveled when they came to school. They were under weight and very skittish. The girl had lots of bruises and bug bites. But all of us reported our concerns to the principal, and only she reported them to the authorities.

Md. Code, Family Law §5-704(a)-(d)

Each health practitioner, police officer, educator or human service worker, acting in a professional capacity who has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect shall report the alleged abuse to the local Department or law enforcement, as applicable REPORTING DEADLINE: Immediately AUTHORITY RECEIVING: Local Department of Social Services or the appropriate law enforcement agency.

 

[panthera]

I have been puzzled since the beginning of this case with the comment from TPD that they "did not think that this was a custody issue because the parents were together." I dunno. I can't help wondering why custody concerns were even mentioned :waitasec: Just seemed strange to me at the time and still does. :moo:

Early on in any investigation concerning a missing child, wouldn't one of the first things LE would want to rule out is "custodial interference" or an abduction by a non-custodial parent? That, imo, appears to be where that statement is coming from. In other words, in this case, both parents are in the home with the children, therefore it wasn't a custody issue.

MOO

 

[callyn]

I have been puzzled since the beginning of this case with the comment from TPD that they "did not think that this was a custody issue because the parents were together." I dunno. I can't help wondering why custody concerns were even mentioned :waitasec: Just seemed strange to me at the time and still does. :moo:

BBM
I suppose because it is often a non-custodial parent who takes a child.
That is what I'm thinking caused LE to bring that up. Seems strange though, if they were living together and had not been separated to even bring it up, I agree.