LE never said that there was any "clean up" in this case, adequate or otherwise.
What Pacheco stated
"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/
IMO - if it was someone in the house, and Isa ended up dead, they didn't actually mean to kill her. So they were panicked, not thinking clearly, did what came to them quickly.
Exactly.. no leap frog going on and its exactly why IMO NOTHING you just described above is even remotely involved in this case..i agree with you...but for argument's sake, say it isn't fake. what abductor leaves not one but two items of blood evidence in the room...stashes something (shower curtain, hat, whatever) in the acura klunker, then sits in the driver's seat of the toyota? yet careful enough to leave no prints??? it makes no sense.
no, they didn't confirm there was blood in the klunker...but they certainly found something they didn't like:
KARLINSKY: Yes. This is very curious. I was there right after the disappearance for more than a week, and we watched police just tearing apart that red car, just going through it methodically day after day. Now we know from these documents they did, in fact, find what they describe as a white hat and also a shower curtain inside with a brown or reddish-brown substance on it.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1205/25/ng.01.html
and there was definitely blood in the other car:
"A forensics team searching for traces of blood, had a positive hit on the driver's seat of a Toyota Corolla parked in the driveway of the Celis home"
http://www.kpho.com/story/18623691/tucson-pd-releases-new-details-on-search-for-isabel
no perp is going to stick around, in his own or his victim's blood, and play leapfrog in the family cars.
and if none of the above is related in any way to isa's disappearance, i do take issue with random blood stains in a little girls' bedroom and the father's car. IMO, JMO, et cetera...
That's really very noble of you, Knox, but my DH keeps a file of contributions for income tax purposes![]()
Snipped for space
Respectfully, I disagree with your theory for the following reasons
IIRC most cases of 'accidental death' of a child result from beating or shaking a small child, or as a result of escalating abuse and neglect that leave quite an evidence trail including bad attendance records at school, teachers noticing bruising and signs, neighbors overhearing the abuse, things like poor Zahra and Nixmary.
I apologize for this imagery, but it is not easy to 'accidentally' kill a robust, healthy six year old child. The idea that parents with no known history of abuse would engage in an initial round of abuse that resulted in death seems improbable IMO
So that leaves a planned killing, which I haven't seen any reason to seriously consider, either. Thinking of CA, or Susan Smith, those were cases in which there was evidence of the parent thinking there was a reason or motivation to kill their children, to start a 'new life' or not be 'burdened' with children, and that does not apply to the Celis case because they have other chidren at home, seem to have a history of living the type of lifestyle that is centered around their children and not inconvenienced by their children, and have appeared to be involved and loving parents.
When I ask myself " could it be the parents?" I personally look for reasons. Of course there is never a good or acceptable reason, but you can look at the parents and see how their sick minds came up with the reasons, from a history of abuse to immediate statements from neighbors and acquaintances sharing knowledge of questionable activities and past actions.... Help me, if possible, think of a case where a parent accidentally killed a child where there was NO history of abuse, neglect, etc... My stumbling block on suspecting SC or RC is that it seems that if they did it, it would have been out of the blue, and I haven't seen that before. I realize it could be a first, but I am not there yet.
No latent prints found in areas does not equate to evidence of staging or wiping clean for me.
The negative results could simply mean that only smudges were found, no prints could be lifted. IMO no latent prints found on toy shelf, books, dresser could be due to normal cleaning, or possibly an environment (extreme heat for one example) that does not allow for lasting latents. As far as the point that even Isa's prints were not found, children's latents have a very short life span according to most searchable sources.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/443195-5WENSh/webviewable/443195.pdf
Report from doc dump
attached again
I agree there is nothing in your attachment that indicates something was cleaned to obscure fingerprints. Those are all surface's one would clean routinely.
I'm much more interested in the scent pad taken from her room. IIRC, they brought in a "special" FBI dog for just that purpose.
But the books on the toy shelf had no prints - that's what is strange to me. Why no fingerprints on the books???? Who cleans books??
Exactly.. no leap frog going on and its exactly why IMO NOTHING you just described above is even remotely involved in this case..
:banghead:
If my "close friends" were being made to look like they were guilty in their child's disappearance, in front of the world, I would have a hard time not defending them (if I believed that they were innocent). Even if it was against their wishes (unless it would benefit getting their child back in some way). I don't think I could stand back and do nothing while their names were being dragged through the mud. I would want LE and the public to stop waisting time and place their focus elsewhere. I think the only thing that would keep me quiet is if I had some doubts about their innocence. I would probably wait until all the evidence comes out before I spoke my opinion. Then again, I don't think I would be close with someone if I thought they were capable of something like this. :waitasec:
Do they no longer have these charges public? Maybe it's just this website. I remember before it said that this was for loose dogs. I wonder why so many charges now. I think there are 8 of them. Just curious.
But the books on the toy shelf had no prints - that's what is strange to me. Why no fingerprints on the books???? Who cleans books??