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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
He just said he doesn't have the evidence to win the case in court or to make an arrest.

Clearly he has a suspect.
 
Dont hold the Baez comment against me I am speaking only as a professional colleague, he is a good attorney, that doesnt mean I agree with everything he did in the case or that I agree with the verdict, he had a job to do and he did it like we all do.

He interests me is all.

Sorry, but I can't put Baez and professional in the same sentence. JMO
 
I am convinced they know what happend. It is just a matter of time.
 
The call to CPS came about when LE contacted them due to something that came up during interviews, I believe he said...
 
No "legal agreement" in place. Sergio agreed to voluntarily stay away from the boys.
 
No legal separation. Agreement made between CPS and Sergio. LE won't comment on why CPS was contacted.
 
Says we have said all along we had not eliminated any scenario and this is still true...
 
Not concerned with public perception (reporter asked if people starting to look at the parents is changing things with volunteers, etc...)
 
Admits the relationship between TPD and the Celis' is strained. They are asking "pointed questions" of them.
 
It sure sounds like LE thinks they know who disappeared Isa, but they can't prove it and they can't find Isa. Reminds me of so many other cases, like Sky, Ayla, Lisa Irwin, Kyron, Hailey Dunn...
 
I don't think it is so clear that they have a suspect if they have no evidence to take to court, and they are looking at both external and internal sources. JMO
 
So there wasnt a 'no contact' ORDER and this was a voluntary agreement.

LE is not involved in the CPS case.

IMO
 
He just said he doesn't have the evidence to win the case in court or to make an arrest.

Clearly he has a suspect.

VERY TELLING REMARK!

Also consider that a voluntary separation and no contact order may mean that SERGIO is not a threat to the kids himself BUT HIS PRESENCE AROUND THEM may be a threat, that is to say maybe someone is after him and she was indeed taken as pay back and they wanted the kids away from him to prevent further incidence. I think we can safely say that he is not abusing the kids or anything like that as some have suggested but it may mean that there is a helluvalot more to this case than we all realize.
 
I think the chief's wording of how he explained what happened that night was very telling.....when he emphasized that the parents SAID such and such happened. I can't describe it - but it was like he was implying that their story wasn't matching up to the investigation.
 
Am I the only one who thought he worded his response "oddly" to the question of the parents both being there that night? When asked if both parents stayed in the home that night, I would have thought he would have just said "yes", but he didn't.

Just me?

:)
 
VERY TELLING REMARK!

Also consider that a voluntary separation and no contact order may mean that SERGIO is not a threat to the kids himself BUT HIS PRESENCE AROUND THEM may be a threat, that is to say maybe someone is after him and she was indeed taken as pay back and they wanted the kids away from him to prevent further incidence. I think we can safely say that he abusing the kids or anything like that as some have suggested but it may mean that there is a helluvalot more to this case than we all realize.

The officer stated that if he did not volunteer to no contact cps would handle it.
To me that means cps would have went to court and gotten an order. I have read through az cps laws and revisions. They first always try to do this before going to court.
 
the decision to involve CPS was made as a result of an interview they conducted...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
3,110
Total visitors
3,291

Forum statistics

Threads
603,929
Messages
18,165,489
Members
231,894
Latest member
bannosusan5
Back
Top