AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #16

[spoiledmom]

and what that does mean?
CL0033825 1 DUI; ALCOHOL DRUGS TOXIC VAPOR OR COMBINATION 04/22/2003 COMPL DISMISSED BY CTY ATTY

CL0033825 2 LIQ IN VEHICLE CONSUME/POSSESS 04/22/2003 COMPL DISMISSED BY CTY ATTY

CL0033825 3 CHILD/VULNERABLE ADULT ABUSE 04/22/2003 COMPL DISMISSED BY CTY ATTY

I overlooked the child/vulnerable abuse charge. Why are they all dismissed? Does he have some kind of pull in the court system?

 

[mamamia54]

BBM

But wouldnt they charge him for child endangerment like they did Becky?

imo

I would think so, that's why that particular filing confuses me.

 

[Patty G]

Well, if it came from NG that clearly explains the issue as there has been nothing at all in MSM regarding JM, except very early on with the media interviewing him.

NG has not been able to substantiate any of her sources except there is a report, here, there, and somewhere and has nothing that can be shown to the MSM.

Even LE has indicated there is a lot of wrong information coming out.

We are so much smarter then to believe what is stated on HLN shows to bring forth as factual, unless we have seen it ourselves first hand.

HLN makes huge mistakes, as with the other day using "half brothers" when HLN spoke about Isa's brothers, or using ex-wife.

 

[jennapuppy]

BBM my husband and I both said that is what we would most likely say in that situation as well. Young and missing and open window lead one to that idea, but "I believe she was abducted" seems over-spoken, calculated, and removed from the emergency nature of the situation.

Sergio's call does indeed seem calculated and does not sound like a spontaneous conversation at all. It seems almost rehearsed, as though he had been thinking for hours about what he would say on the call. There's just no sense of urgency in his voice at all.

 

[LisaB]

:waitasec:

I am not sure exactly what is being asked about my late night made up scenario lol but quite a few of us assume the surveillance LE mistakenly published as taken the night Isa went missing, may have been from the night before she went missing --Thursday into Friday, not the night LE was there blocking off streets....as discussed around page 30 of thread 8.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - AZ AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #8

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - AZ AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #8

My scenario had no return to the scene of the crime at all. I disclaimed it was just another possibility to explain why the OM store with seemingly the best positioned cameras did not seem to have picked up anything.

(still from the NG show interviewing Mr. Moore)



This was just a scenario, that came about last night while I was discussing this NG video
http://www.mooresecuritysolutions.com/rick-moore-speaking-with-nancy-grace-on-hln

My apologies. I thought we were only supposed to speculate about things we did not have "official word" on. While I think the video was actually from one WEEK prior to the disappearance (are bars open past 1 on Thursday night? I really don't know.), I thought we were not to contradict what has been established as "fact" by MSM or LE. So you feel he was there two consecutive nights, taking Isa the second night. I'd think the level of activity at the house on a school night would be very different than what he would experience on a Friday night when the kids had a late game. That's why I was assuming that the tape could have been from the preceding Friday/Saturday.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Over 5 months later and no resolution?

I cant believe that if it is an allegation concerning a child.

IMO

I thought CPS was Child Protective Services? Pretty sure it involved a child. JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cluciano63]

I wonder if LE waited a while to call CPS to issue the "no contact" request because they wanted to have Sergio cooperating for the first few weeks, and figured with the police scrutiny that the boys would be okay in the meantime? And then decided last week to apply the pressure? Not saying this would be a good idea, but just wondering.

 

[Taminator]

I had wondered about this one yesterday, now I"m thinking that during a traffic stop, PD smelled either drugs or alcohol coming from the vehicle, and that the kids and another adult was in that vehicle. But, what hit me was that the case was dismissed. How could whoever stopped him be so wrong about the drugs/alcohol vapor coming from the vehicle?

The second count looks like an open container count, IMO. Which you can also be charged with if you have a liquor bottle or a tall can of beer that is not in a bag.

 

[white rabbit]

I overlooked the child/vulnerable abuse charge. Why are they all dismissed? Does he have some kind of pull in the court system?

that's from becky's record...and the prior year, 08/06/02, she was also charged with child/vulnerable adult abuse. CR02214361A-IC. 13-3623 charge. case dismissed...and sergio DID have a drug conviction ini 1993. case CR93615330 13-3415 charge. Possession, manufacture, delivery and advertisement of drug paraphernalia. he pled guilty.

http://www.jp.pima.gov/casesearch/casesearch.aspx

 

[mamamia54]

The second count looks like an open container count, IMO. Which you can also be charged with if you have a liquor bottle or a tall can of beer that is not in a bag.

Right, but the case was dismissed even though that open container was being drunk by someone in the vehicle with children inside. That's the biggest thing to me.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

OBE,
I am sincerely sorry that you had to endure this in your childhood. Glad that you prevailed and became such an obviously strong woman...wub ya, liz...

Aww thank you liz.

Yes, I have truly been blessed, and I thank God everyday for how my life has turned out.

I assure you at one time for many years I was not that strong woman or child but one thing he could never do is break my spirit and change who I really am.

IMO

 

[jennapuppy]

I wonder if LE waited a while to call CPS to issue the "no contact" request because they wanted to have Sergio cooperating for the first few weeks, and figured with the police scrutiny that the boys would be okay in the meantime? And then decided last week to apply the pressure? Not saying this would be a good idea, but just wondering.

I'm wondering why LE stated that they contacted CPS. The wording initially gave the impression that LE brought CPS in on the case. If there had been a CPS investigation just a few months earlier, it seems that CPS would have contacted LE with that info, and would have been part of the case from the beginning.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

that's from becky's record...and the prior year, 08/06/02, she was also charged with child/vulnerable adult abuse. CR02214361A-IC. 13-3623 charge. case dismissed...and sergio DID have a drug conviction ini 1993. case CR93615330 13-3415 charge. Possession, manufacture, delivery and advertisement of drug paraphernalia. he pled guilty.

http://www.jp.pima.gov/casesearch/casesearch.aspx

Thanks, so I did have it right. He would have been around 22 years old at the time.

IMO

 

[jennapuppy]

that's from becky's record...and the prior year, 08/06/02, she was also charged with child/vulnerable adult abuse. CR02214361A-IC. 13-3623 charge. case dismissed...and sergio DID have a drug conviction ini 1993. case CR93615330 13-3415 charge. Possession, manufacture, delivery and advertisement of drug paraphernalia. he pled guilty.

http://www.jp.pima.gov/casesearch/casesearch.aspx

Is this more than mere possession? He was dealing drugs?

 

[LisaB]

I have a new hypothesis - won't even call it a theory because its based on a gut feeling and past experience rather than any facts.

What if Sergio and Becky have been having problems for a long time...married at 21 to a possibly controlling man Becky could have been getting tired of it and had maybe even threatened divorce. I know there are no domestic court cases to prove a volitile relationship, but that doesn't mean there wasn't abuse (and now hearing of CPS's earlier involvement it seems even more likely). What if Sergio had Isabel "abducted" as a way to hurt Becky. If he had some friend/distant relative pick her up at 630 am, about the time the neighbor heard male voices. If Becky had not yet left for work, maybe she was in the shower and he could have made sure she didn't peek in on Isa that morning.
Or, maybe at 630 she had already left the house...?? By the time he reports her missing at 8:15 Isa is through the border, its open at that time. It could explain the calm 911 call and the searches in Mexico and even the NCO, if police are on to him. I know its kinda far-fetched and I hope no one is offended by this, but men can do crazy things. Please dont think I'm being racist here either because my husband is Hispanic and most of my previous relationships have been w Hispanic men, I'm just saying, there is a stereotypical, arrogant, controlling type demeanor that SC puts off, IMO and I think he could be capable of something like I described if he and BC were having marital problems...

I actually suggested something similar. My daughter's dad and I were having marital problems and were planning to split after Christmas/New Years. But on New Years Eve, our house caught fire while we were out and it was out of our hands. The insurance company did not offer TWO apartments, they offered ONE, and all our belongings had been boxed up and taken out for cleaning, repair or repacement.

It was 4 months before we went home, and neither of us wanted to leave our pretty new house, we had learned to live without "love" and we just stayed together for 3 more years.

I wondered if Becky "I should have COME AND CHECKED ON HER" Celis and Sergio were living apart, but the kids stayed in the home all the time with the parents moving in and out in turn (sharing custody based on work schedules and the kids activities). If so, Sergio may have realized that Isabel disappearing would bring the family together again. He called and told Becky to "get her butt home" (where she belonged)... :moo::moo::moo:

 

[Taminator]

Right, but the case was dismissed even though that open container was being drunk by someone in the vehicle with children inside. That's the biggest thing to me.

The "open container" may not have necessarily been consumed in the vehicle. It is also against the law to have a can or bottle out of a bag and is considered an open container. They could easily say a clerk sold it to them and never bagged the bottle/can and the charge could be dismissed.

 

[white rabbit]

Is this more than mere possession? He was dealing drugs?

i don't know because it says all other charges were dismissed but doesn't list them. it's kind of hard to cut/paste:

Defendant CELIS, SERGIO DAVID
Number of Charges 02
Date of Birth 12/1970
Et Al 1
Offense Date 05 Nov 1993
Plea Date 22 Nov 1993
Plea Type NOT GUILTY
Companion Case Number TR93032945
Attorney Type
Attorney Number
Attorney
Assigned Judge
Reporter
Next Calendared Mar 8 1994 10:00AM
Continues 0
Hearing Type PT
Domestic Violence N
Comment JN
Prosecution Agency Number SO931105403
Citation 30663
Booking Number
Charge 13-3415
Badge Number 1 858
Officer Name 1 WOOLRIDGE
Badge Number 2 473
Officer Name 2 HARDYMAN
Filed Date 11/09/1993
Attorney Number
Attorney
Bond Amount 1075
Bond Paid
Bond Type OR
Bond Disposition

Charges Detail No Cases Found

Calendar Summons Issued
Summons Reissued
Summons Returned
Order to Show Cause
Arraignment 16 Jun 9194
Initial Appearance
Pretrial 08 Mar 1994
Preliminary
Term Date 08 Mar 1994
Community Service Hours 0
Jail Begin
Jail End
Probation Officer
Sup. Court Arraignment
Superior Court Number
Trial
Trial Type
Term Type PLEAD GLTY
Hours Completed 0
Probation Begin 08 Mar 1994
Probation End 08 Sep 1994
Warrant Issued
Warrant Returned
Warrant Quash
Accounting Total $

Total Paid $
Balance $

Payment Due : 07 Apr 1994

Community Service Hours Due : 0


Proceedings Case Plaintiff Defendant Item Date REF Proceeding Entry
CR93615330 State of Arizona CELIS, SERGIO DAVID 1 22 Nov 1993 MI DEFT PLEAD NOT GUILTY, PT SET 3-8-94 @ 10:00. BY
CR93615330A State of Arizona CELIS, SERGIO DAVID 2 08 Mar 1994 MI DEF APPEARED FOR P/T. PLEAD GUILTY TO 13-3415. DISM ALL OTHER CHRGS. UNSPRSVD PROB 6 MOS. ATTEND LA FRONTERA & VERIFY. ENROLL IN SUB ABUSE BY 3-15-94 AND SHOW PROOF OF COMPLETION BY

Loading . . .

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I thought CPS was Child Protective Services? Pretty sure it involved a child. JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps you missed the subject in my prior post.

We were discussing that CPS had been in the Celis home in December yet Sergio was not removed from his home. Some were discussing it would take that long to verify the abuse occured and I posted I dont think it would take 5 months for a resolution for any allegation of abuse to a child.

I dont know where you came up with that I said it didnt involve a child though.

 

[DhyanaAZ]

I have said this all along. But the "official" position is now that it was Saturday Night/Sunday morning. I will stick my neck out here. It's not. There is no evidence of Crime Scene tape that was still attacthed to the post the day after the video was released seen in the video supposedly taken after the crime occurred. There was no LE presence, nor media, and there's no sign of the "Command Center". I think it was taken one week before the abduction, on Friday/Saturday.

In any case, I don't think it is from the night that Isa disappeared either. I think it is from an earlier date. But I have no actual PROOF, and LE is considered a "trusted source" while I am not.

And, more specifically, I was addressing Prof, who stated "...the night before Isa went missing, the perp stayed late a few hours after the store (any store) closed to scope out just who might be walking around or awake by around 1:30 am, the time he planned to take her the next night. This perp would be the shadowy figure in the mistaken date surveilance we were given." and who is apparently operating on the assumption that the video was from Thursday Night/Friday morning, although we really have nothing specific to support that theory. According to the "official story" this video is still presumed to be Sat/Sun. In order for the perp to appear on camera Sat/Sun, he would have had to return to the scene of the crime the following night, in spite of heavy LE presence.

Do the bars stay open past 1 on weeknights?

BBM- the bars here in Tucson are allowed to be serving alcohol until 2 am every night of the week..liquor sales can begin again at 6 am

 

[LisaB]

Yes technically- I once heard the safe age of kids babysitting each other at home should be that their combined ages should add up to 20 years of age. But it really depends on all the kids, and every other circumstance. Their ages 14+ 10+6


for what it's worth- I'm a mom ( my kids are B G B: 24,21,19) and a teacher / Mandatory Reporter :coffeews:

YIKES! So Octomom could leave her 3 year old octuplets alone because their ages add to 24? NO FREAKIN' WAY!?!? Maybe if TWO of them added up to 20 it would make more sense.