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

[oceanblueeyes]

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

Imo, it pretty much means the same thing. There doesnt have to be an arrest to impound a vehicle if a crime is suspected and if LE thinks possible evidence is in the vehicle.


Sheriff Laurie Smith said following the arrest that DNA and other evidence links Garcia-Torres to the teen’s disappearance. Investigators found Sierra’s DNA in Garcia-Torres’ red Volkswagen Jetta after they impounded the vehicle a few weeks into the investigation. Plus, Garcia-Torres’ DNA was found on items that belonged to Sierra, which were discarded in a field northwest of the teen’s home two days after she was reported missing.


They did not arrest Torres until much later after they had already impounded his vehicle.

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/...cle_5551bf21-a7e2-5e6b-ae0e-550c6fcf1fcb.html

But the Celis' vehicles were neither impounded or seized.

IMO

 

[Dr. Know?]

Does anyone know for a fact that all of their cars were searched & none were siezed? I must have missed that fact in the doc release. tia

 

[Prof]

lol Dr. Know I suppose you are right, as we probably should not take the lack of a report of a seized (or impounded) vehicle as evidence that the car was not seized.
We did see a report on RR's truck being seized.
I think we would have heard in the media if any of the cars at the Celis residence were towed, though... IMO

 

[joedotnet]

lol Dr. Know I suppose you are right, as we probably should not take the lack of a report of a seized (or impounded) vehicle as evidence that the car was not seized.
We did see a report on RR's truck being seized.
I think we would have heard in the media if any of the cars at the Celis residence were towed, though... IMO

but they had a search warrant for the car and media reported LE searching it extensively...so I imagine they got whatever evidence they needed before the crime scene tape was taken down.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

I forgot to add Jhessye. I haven't forgotten her just forgot her "Mom." I didn't know she was pregnant again. I hope that a great family can adopt the new baby. Jerice is another person that should not be allowed to have in her home -anything with a heartbeat, including skunks. lol! jmo!

Hey! What's with you and the skunks! :giggle:

 

[MBK]

Snipped for space
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.

Out of the blue? We do not know WHY, but "daddy" cannot CONTACT his sons in any way. He cannot even have supervised visits. Generally, CPS allows supervised visits. But not in this case. We don't know the history here . . but that doesn't mean that it does not exist.

 

[marazul]

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.

Thank you for your respectful and productive reply to my questions, good to see we can politely exchange contrasting opinions :tyou:

BBM
Point well taken, but what I am saying is that if " the abuse had just started" and was so new that there was no suspicion or evidence, that means they went from zero to murder pretty quickly.
I was abused too ( what is the stat, two in five if us?) on the abuse scale mine was non violent and of a sexual nature, not half of what many of you endured, mainly inappropriate touching, exposure, and propositions by a family member... Unlike you I can't say no one was able to tell, because there were signs that other adults SHOULD HAVE picked up on but didn't. I don't think either of us can say we "lived lives similar to Isa's" because we don't know if she was abused, and as you said, we don't know what happened that night.

 

[marazul]

Out of the blue? We do not know WHY, but "daddy" cannot CONTACT his sons in any way. He cannot even have supervised visits. Generally, CPS allows supervised visits. But not in this case. We don't know the history here . . but that doesn't mean that it does not exist.

I mean out of the blue compared to other high profile cases. Casey had been lying and looking for ways to avoid parental responsibility, SA was a horror movie obsessed strange guy in the H Dunn case, EB had a history or abuse towards ZB, etc etc.. What I meant is that we have heard no mention of past maltreatment or abuse of the Celis children from anyone, nor have we heard of verified strange obsessions or hobbies.
I am not saying that based in what we DON'T know, I am saying it based on what we DO know. We haven't seen pictures on FB, neighborood witnesses, verified reports of the parents doing or saying or acting any way that throws up red flags ( until the 911 call..)
The CPS incident is enough for an arrest, LE said not to make too much of it in regards to the case, so while I am curious as the next person as to what it is about, I don't think it is a case-solving bombshell.
My point was not that it is impossible that the parents are involved, my point was that IMO the Celis family APPEARS to be a low risk, normal family, and for that reason I personally feel hesitant to assume them responsible.

 

[MBK]

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.

If, and it's a BIG IF something like this happened - - - She may be alive, but there are things worse than death, I suppose. I mean, not everyone who wants a child wants to love and nurture them. And someone who BUYS a child? Hmmm. .. such desperation doesn't bode well. But again, this is all a Big If.

 

[MBK]

My point was not that it is impossible that the parents are involved, my point was that IMO the Celis family APPEARS to be a low risk, normal family, and for that reason I personally feel hesitant to assume them responsible.

When you drive while drinking, you put your child in danger. IMO, that's not low risk. Sad if it's normal. Maybe I'm wrong . . I mean, I'll accept another "good ol' Dave" of a neighbor spiriting her away if that's the case . . .

 

[iSleuth]

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.

Saddly-I know a couple of families who have lost children. You can google Samara Jan Turkel. There is a foundation after her. She was a good friend of ours ( mine and my kids) she was a brilliant 5 year old and was undergoing very very prelim. tests was at the hospital and ...died in front of every one. She had an undiagnosed auto immune disease in 1995. Before it was even a word.

:-( I know two other similar sudden death situations- one was in a diner with an adolescent boy in our town. Another was quite recently a young woman in young 20's died suddenly at the gym.

Heart-wrenching grief.

I think -having watched these friends of mine go through this up close and personal- is what drew me to these missing children cases where parents behavior seems so incongruous to me.
:-(

:truce:

 

[marazul]

When you drive while drinking, you put your child in danger. IMO, that's not low risk. Sad if it's normal. Maybe I'm wrong . . I mean, I'll accept another "good ol' Dave" of a neighbor spiriting her away if that's the case . . .

I agree that driving drunk is bad. But let's say a total WHAT if this was coming home from a family BBQ, had her first child in the car, somewhat new and young mom, maybe had two beers in a one beer time frame...still a bad and dangerous choice, but would that make her a high risk or child murder?
We don't know if she had six shots of tequila and was running to the liquor store for more, or if she had a margarita and a half at a kids birthday party. I can't say that charge makes her high risk because I don't know the circumstances, it is never okay but it could be a stupid forgivable mistake.

 

[joedotnet]

I agree that driving drunk is bad. But let's say a total WHAT if this was coming home from a family BBQ, had her first child in the car, somewhat new and young mom, maybe had two beers in a one beer time frame...still a bad and dangerous choice, but would that make her a high risk or child murder?
We don't know if she had six shots of tequila and was running to the liquor store for more, or if she had a margarita and a half at a kids birthday party. I can't say that charge makes her high risk because I don't know the circumstances, it is never okay but it could be a stupid forgivable mistake.

I have zero tolerance when it comes to drinking and driving. It is such an easy thing to avoid. And then to add driving your kid around while you are under the influence is completely unfathomable to me regardless of the circumstances.

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

When you drive while drinking, you put your child in danger. IMO, that's not low risk. Sad if it's normal. Maybe I'm wrong . . I mean, I'll accept another "good ol' Dave" of a neighbor spiriting her away if that's the case . . .

This is a subject that I just can't bring myself to discuss much here. What I want to say is you not only put your child at risk, you are putting someone elses child at risk, and that child shouldn't die because a "parent" or anyone else for that matter chooses to drive impaired.

 

[marazul]

I have zero tolerance when it comes to drinking and driving. It is such an easy thing to avoid. And then to add driving your kid around while you are under the influence is completely unfathomable to me regardless of the circumstances.

I respect your opinion, and I don't disagree, but I do feel that there are plenty of responsible, safe mothers in their 30s that did some stupid things in their 20s that they are regretful of. I think a DUI with a child is awful, but I don't think it means you will forever be a bad parent or are completely irredeemable, and I do feel that circumstances do count to a degree. I have heard the rule one drink per hour, what if she drank that, felt fine, assumed she had eliminated all alcohol from her system, but for some reason metabolized the alcohol slowly and was just at the legal limit?
I was on jury duty for a complicated DUI case, and I learned that there is one type of DUI that reflects that you are an unsafe driver, and one type that reflects that you are not impaired but your blood alcohol level is over the limit. The defendant in this case was charged with both, but it was explained by the defense and stipulated by the prosecution that it is possible to have no impairment but still be over the legal limit. Me, for example, I could have two glasses of wine over a three hour dinner date with my husband and not be the least bit impaired, but my blood alcohol limit might qualify for a DUI. Not everyone with a DUI was what we think of as 'drunk', and the legal limit varies per state IIRC so I could be fine and legal in one state, cross the state line and be "driving drunk".
It's just not a perfect science IMO.

 

[Madeleine74]

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.

JonBenet Ramsey. Although there were signs of prior sexual abuse discovered during the autopsy (older scars in addition to the new ones found), no one knew of it previously and there were no prior allegations of abuse. And yes, I do believe she was killed by one of the parents, in a rage incident, then the staging occurred.

 

[marazul]

JonBenet Ramsey. Although there were signs of prior sexual abuse discovered during the autopsy (older scars in addition to the new ones found), no one knew of it previously and there were no prior allegations of abuse. And yes, I do believe she was killed by one of the parents, in a rage incident, then the staging occurred.

That one crossed my mind, and strange they both had older brothers home at the time.
I know this is somewhat meaningless, but PR sure seemed TO ME to be strange.. Stranger than RC... But most of that strangeness was learned of after the fact.. and that ransom note was hinky as h....

 

[Madeleine74]

Yep. But the point is no one knew what the Ramsey family was "really" like. From outward appearances they looked to have it all, adore their children, want for nothing.

So to look at the Celis family and think we know them and know what goes on (or went on) in that house behind closed doors... well... no, we don't. And the people who know them don't know either.

 

[joedotnet]

I respect your opinion, and I don't disagree, but I do feel that there are plenty of responsible, safe mothers in their 30s that did some stupid things in their 20s that they are regretful of. I think a DUI with a child is awful, but I don't think it means you will forever be a bad parent or are completely irredeemable, and I do feel that circumstances do count to a degree. I have heard the rule one drink per hour, what if she drank that, felt fine, assumed she had eliminated all alcohol from her system, but for some reason metabolized the alcohol slowly and was just at the legal limit?
I was on jury duty for a complicated DUI case, and I learned that there is one type of DUI that reflects that you are an unsafe driver, and one type that reflects that you are not impaired but your blood alcohol level is over the limit. The defendant in this case was charged with both, but it was explained by the defense and stipulated by the prosecution that it is possible to have no impairment but still be over the legal limit. Me, for example, I could have two glasses of wine over a three hour dinner date with my husband and not be the least bit impaired, but my blood alcohol limit might qualify for a DUI. Not everyone with a DUI was what we think of as 'drunk', and the legal limit varies per state IIRC so I could be fine and legal in one state, cross the state line and be "driving drunk".
It's just not a perfect science IMO.

Sure...but my rule...if I'm driving I don't drink. Period. Why even chance possibly impairing yourself and killing your child or someone else's child.

 

[joedotnet]

Yep. But the point is no one knew what the Ramsey family was "really" like. From outward appearances they looked to have it all, adore their children, want for nothing.

So to look at the Celis family and think we know them and know what goes on (or went on) in that house behind closed doors... well... no, we don't. And the people who know them don't know either.

100 percent agree!