I think he's just reminding us to remember that SC should not be considered the only suspect right now..?
Originally posted by Knox
Glad you joined us, I've been thinking about asking you for your opinion on this case!
What do you make of the "voluntary-CPS arrangement"?
Just catching up, sorry if you have already spoken re; the above.
This is the post with the transcript of the presser
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - AZ AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #14
Does anyone mind pointing out where LE stated SC needed space?
Note: I see posts stating SG... I assume they are typos? If not I am not sure who SG is.
I personally think the NCO issue that was worked out with CPS was as LE put it in the PC so SC could get some space as not to create a smothering effect on them and allow him to deal with things which need dealt with with LE, Job and to have a more active role in looking for his daughter without putting the boys through daily stress over the situation at hand. Get the boy's into a calm enviroment and allow them to get back to finishing the school year and get proper mental healthcare to cope with the situation they are dealing with. JMO
LE has made it clear that they have not ruled out anyone (including the family). That statement alone serves to remind us of their public stance. While LE has not publicly disclosed who they think is a suspect or not, and why, they have at least one (and it is likely SC).
Hi, Knox. Sorry I didn't see this til now and had to move it over from the other thread.
A "voluntary" as we call it in the AZ foster care system is not unusual at all, and is often a good idea for the parents because during the term of the agreement (90 days normally) the time does not count toward the deadline for the parents to shape up or lose their kids.
That said, the usual reason for a "voluntary" is that CPS has visited the home and told the parents, "Look, you can sign a voluntary or we can take the kids. Your call." (Once in a while there are other reasons, like the parents have just become homeless and want their kids to be safe for 90 days while they get jobs and housing.)
Ok NG on again
Joe Vega said at first he had to cancel his appearance because SG thought he and RC should speak publicly first.
All coaches, friends, support him
NG we should be on ISA'S side
JV. I am talking about the recent events and the two little boys and the finger pointing at SC.
NG why is he barred from contact
JV I don't know, all the parents, kids love him, I don't have info on why this happened, he said he could not give me details, I did not want to pry, he's already hurting.
I'm 100% sure LE and the FBI would think of these types of things and would be asking for this information as part of a standard investigation. They're the professionals who do this for a living and are quite competent. We the public bystanders are not in the position to investigate and crack cases.
As to your questions...can't imagine anyone on this forum and unconnected to the case could know the answers.
So it's possible that SC will be denied contact for 90 days??
Does anyone else read this with NG's snarly attitude voice? lol
Most likely, that's what the voluntary agreement said, but it's voluntary so they can back out of it anytime. Of course, if they do, CPS will (probably) follow through on the thread they (probably) made to take the kids away on a non-voluntary basis.
IMO, any or all of these could be reasons. #5 might is a very likely reason why he can't call his boys.'Kay...Wonder why he isn't allowed to even call them though ? JMO
Instead of agreeing to CPS's safety plan, he can refuse to sign CPS's plan and demand to go before a judge to have CPS's "evidence" reviewed. His court date will likely not be for many weeks and perhaps months, though.So it's possible that SC will be denied contact for 90 days??
You really think so... Simple trivial stuff like that doe's get overlooked and it's valid question to ask here because there are forum members in these threads who actually know the couple. It's a matter of looking for answers and questions in the effort to find someone that is important not so much as who to hang for the deed. Opinion's on SC's guilt or innocence needs to stop being the main focus and the scope of intel gathering is kinda important to prevent tunnel vision. Do we really need to know what fragrance SC's crap is in order to find Isa, NO we need to figure out things such as motive's, Time's, Alibi's, Behavior patterns and person's who could have known the home's layout... take the side blinders off and put SC on the back burner for just a second and pretend for a moment he was not even at all possibly even remotely capable of being involved... Even thought it's not only highly likely he was involved but it's hard to find a way to say he is not involved and that's what makes this case very very hard BUT one must try to ignore his involvement.
Here's another 2 cents worth of my opinion, 'cause I know you're all dying for it. Although I don't believe one can be crucified because of their demeanor on a 911 call, I do believe that one can be ruled out because of it.
I 100% believe that RC was as surprised, devastated, terrified and desperate as she sounded in her 911 conversation. I feel the same way about the brother. If someone in the home or known to the family took Isa, these two were NOT in on it. I would also bet a donut that they both passed ldts, as well.
The jury, in my mind, is still out on SC.
On that note, good night! :seeya:
Instead of agreeing to CPS's safety plan, he can refuse to sign CPS's plan and demand to go before a judge to have CPS's "evidence" reviewed. His court date will likely not be for many weeks and perhaps months, though.
Instead of agreeing to CPS's safety plan, he can refuse to sign CPS's plan and demand to go before a judge to have CPS's "evidence" reviewed. His court date will likely not be for many weeks and perhaps months, though.
Would he need a lawyer for that?