AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #22

[JenInNs]

edited to delete- got my cars confused- sorry.

 

[spoiledmom]

Here is my wild and crazy theory. I will admit that being a local and hearing certain rumors has helped me come up with it. I will say with every rumor I have heard locally (not from the media), SC has been the POI. I personally believe that SC and maybe another family member (Not RC) might have secretly sold ISA on the Black Market or to someone in that line of criminal activity. I think this may be why LE looked at their financial records for clues and why they decided to call it an abduction. He seems to be consistantly in debt and possibly owed money to someone and handed over his daughter willingly. I think this is why LE has stated that they have no reason to believe that she is not alive. The weird calls and comments in the document dumps about SC owing money, I believe have a thread of truth to them. I am thinking that the possible blood found may just be from a normal scrape etc, or possibly from the person staging the screen/window entry from ISA's bedroom possibly cutting themself. I believe that SC is trying to get money in every way he can. IMO it started with selling his daughter, then raising donations, whatever it takes to get him his money. It may sound crazy to some people but this kind of stuff does happen.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

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/

Respectfully <snipped>.

Thanks for the exact wording of the LE statement. I don't want to say "covering things up" and lead anyone to believe that I'm suggesting that an intruder or family member was engaging in the "cover-up" of a crime because, at this point in time, there isn't enough known about what happened to Isabel and/or whether anything needed to be "covered up".

In suggesting "cleaning up", I'm referring to the possibility that Isabel's chest of drawers was dusted or wiped clean and that other household surfaces may have also been tidied and/or items removed. If I spill or break something in my home, I'm going to clean up the mess (or get DH to do it )

Pacheco's statement was somewhat cryptic and his words carefully chosen, so it's difficult to interpret exactly what he meant. Remove those pesky qualifiers "really" and "possibly", and the statement has a different meaning. :moo:

 

[time]

I keep trying to think...

What do we actually know as fact?

I don't think we know if any of the apparent blood stains or if the presumptive blood tests were blood, and were human blood.

I don't think we can assume someone wiped anything of prints (thanks Prof for the post on that).

Do we really know who actually saw Isa last? If all the doors were locked that night? What room SC slept in?

I'm still left with the same feeling ... SC and RC are equally hinky. I don't tend to think SC abused Isa, he kind of seems like Mr. Mom to me. Maybe I just can't picture the guy being an angry type person. However, I think either or both of them could have a drinking problem.

I think someone who knew them (extended family, acquaintances, friends) or knew of them is probably the guilty party and that SC/RC either think the same or are acting hinky because they have other stuff to hide, or something.

However, contradicting what I have said is that pesky CPS stuff and the parents not being very active right off the bat, them being slightly deceitful about the NBC 'direct payment' thing, and that both of them flip flopped their demeanor.

Obviously, there are some critical pieces missing in this picture and I hope LE has some of them!

 

[Dr. Know?]

Sergio has or had court today. No update on the court record yet.

That's all I got...there just isn't much news of any kind in regards to Isa.

 

[marazul]

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.

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.

 

[SmoothOperator]

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...

Exactly.. no leap frog going on and its exactly why IMO NOTHING you just described above is even remotely involved in this case..

 

[spoiledmom]

Did it always say Pre-trial assigned regarding his courtdate today?
http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx

I am surprised that these charges are considered criminal since they are for "loose dogs" correct?

 

[Knox]

That's really very noble of you, Knox, but my DH keeps a file of contributions for income tax purposes

As do I, every cancelled check goes in my file

 

[Lava]

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.

While we mostly hear about the sensational stories of murder, which usually include a history of disturbing signs (contributing to our outrage), there are several hundred murders a year involving parents and children. Sometimes the families that look the most perfect have the most to hide. There are tons of cases out there.

Also, if she had been being abused in some way whose to say it hadn't just started, so of course there would be no trail of suspicion. I know that the abuse I endured didn't start until I was 8, and no one would have been able to tell. I lived a very similar life as Isa. My abuser was very "loving" and "affectionate" and looked like every other relative out there.

The problem is, we don't know what happened that night or any other night. We don't know if someone did come forward to LE with suspicions. So, given that the family members have not been cleared, your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Dr. Know?]

I'm pretty sure it always did Spoiledmom.

 

[spoiledmom]

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.

 

[Knox]

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.

 

[carole]

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??

 

[tlzzdavis]

In reference to the "IMPOUND" of RR's truck. It was not "IMPOUNDED" it was seized and then released back to the owner. There is a big difference.

"IMPOUND" comes from an accident, arrest, abandonment

"SEIZE" comes from LE investigation or criminal activity

 

[Knox]

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??

Books could be plural, as in two. Those two books could be keepsake type items, not the "Wheels on the Bus" variety. Maybe there is not much time to read, in their duel parent working home. Maybe they don't like to read books, they prefer sports and outdoor activities. Who the heck knows what the answer is?

I just don't think this particular issue means much in overall picture of this case. :moo:

 

[white rabbit]

Exactly.. no leap frog going on and its exactly why IMO NOTHING you just described above is even remotely involved in this case..

i appreciate your objectivity.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

: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:

Maybe the friends dont think they have to prove anything to the world.

 

[Prof]

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.

The charges have always been the same -- records have not changed, except to update court date progression
2 of them are misdemeanor for dogs at large = possible fines and possible jail time in Tucson

3 charges for no proof of current license
3 for no proof of vaccinations
for a total of 8 citations

 

[Prof]

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??

If only Isa had handled the books, children's latent prints if made at all don't last because of the lack of chemistry in the body before puberty. I posted a link earlier today. If books were handled by both parents and child, then it may just be that no readable latents were found.