AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #23

[FrayedKnot]

BBM - that information is not sensitive to the case. It may be sensitive to the people named, we all wondered about that when the documents were released but as usual, no one has taken an interest in any of them on here.

I am an Australian living in America, I deal with crime daily and did in Australia, attempting to compare the two countries legal systems or investigative procedures is like comparing apples to oranges - you just can't.

Btw - Welcome to WS, I only just realized you joined this month

But, Gut, mightn't that sort thing cause a problem should this case ever go to trial? A defense attorney surely would be able to turn the unredacted minor's names, witness info, etc into some kind of BS maneuver to cast doubt on LE's investigation.

I have no expertise in trial procedures, but I have seen holes torn in a prosecutor's case over less......JMO

 

[white rabbit]

so it's been almost two months since isa disappeared...and over one month since sergio has been able to see his other children.

does anyone know if either parent is back at work, or if he was allowed to spend father's day with his sons?

TIA...

 

[TxLady2]

I still think it is quite different when it comes to vehicles that hold forensic evidence in them though. If it ever went to trial the defense team would want to run their own test on the vehicle as is their right and would be unable to do so since it had been turned over to the owners even before a trial began.

I have just never heard of a case where it happened in the US. I am not saying that it has never happened but I have never heard of it.

They sure havent released AGTs vehicle back to his wife and imo, wont and only if he is found NG will he get his vehicle returned and LE took photos and tested the inside of the car too but there is nothing more powerful than having the actual car in tact.

They have even brought vehicles into the courtroom before or taken jurors to see a vehicle that held forensic evidence.

I remember even in the rape case where the guy (Alex ?) lived abroad for 8 years before being caught they brought his jeep vehicle into the courtroom to show the jurors how he was able to rape the young woman.

I just dont think TPD found anything in the Celis' vehicles or they would have seized their vehicles and would still have them.

The jurors werent allowed to open the CA car or see it. Only photos and the truck felt they cut out and other items found but yet they still seized the car and kept it for three years. Then it was released back to George and Cindy who wanted it destroyed. Casey being found NG is the only reason the car was released.

IMO

How the heck did they get a vehicle inside the courtroom??? Or even the building for that matter??? They would have to take it apart and put it back together.
Not arguing with you but talk about useless displays. Anybody with half a brain could figure out the mechanics of rape in a vehicle, they wouldn't have to see the vehicle itself.
The reason that Casey's vehicle was kept so long, IMO, is because George and Cindy didn't want it and weren't going to pay the tow fee to get it back. . Once they get every particle of evidence they need out of a vehicle, they inform the owners and expect them to retrieve it... they don't pay to have it towed back to them. (This is MOO, based on logic and common sense.) Who would want it anyway?? Caylee died in that car, I wouldn't want it either!!

 

[Azcrabcakes]

Just an observation - based on seeing similar things while reading. I would think that the evidence would not be returned for a long time, possibly till after the trial. It's true what someone said upstream... if an item yields no clues, you can't keep testing it.

But, what if someone gets a idea to test for another substance? What if results are lost and they want to test fibers from a shirt again? What if NEW evidence turns up... another car, or, gulp, remains? They may want to compare fibers or a substance on the new evidence to the old. Maybe new evidence. a new witness, or even the perp, provides new information that could be proven/disproven by the evidence already collected? For example, paint flecks found on clothing already in evidence that may mean nothing now, could match paint flecks on a perp, or weapon, or something found down the line. I'm just saying. This is a real possibility, although maybe my examples are not the best. Don't police often keep evidence for years and years?

 

[Prof]

I find it interesting that you don't find the release of 550+ documents with no redaction of personal details as being "sensitive", and I wonder if you would have the same view if your name address and phone number was published in the public arena?

I know I would be very disturbed by this APPARENT indiscretion.

We have very tough privacy laws here in Australia, that every one must observe, including LE. They can demand personal information certainly, they are the only ones who can, but they CANNOT publish it.

BBM Where did I make this statement? I did not make this statement. The quote that this post quoted of mine clearly stated that I don't know what the Arizona Sunshine Laws entail. Witnesses' names might be part of what was requested by the media, and by law LE had to comply. Again, I don't know.

I will answer the second BBM at the end of my post.

When the documents were dropped weeks ago, I might have posted a bit of personal dismay at the names being there. I post at WS and don't ever read other sites, because at WS we don't post full names. We don't do many things that are done elsewhere. That is why I like it here. Still that does not change my answer now. The names not being redacted does not affect the way I feel about LE in this case.

The names not being redacted is a separate issue from "case sensitive" evidence.

IMO It is not really fair to blame LE for not redacting names, when we do not know why the names were left there. Yes, it could have been an admin. error, but we don't know that either.


I do know exactly why LE released the reports as they did. They were required to by law. IMO they would not have released anything that is part of their investigation, if they were not required to by law.

We have different laws in my state as far as releasing names, but I am not really clear on those either. I know someone who was a witness in a very big case here in my state. This witness' name was not released to the press until LE caught the perp. Eventually, LE was required to release the names to the press. This was definitely not convenient for this witness, as phones began to ring, and the same thing had to be repeated about not being able to talk, but still this witness only wished that more could have been done to save a life.

I would feel the same way as my friend in my example, if I were a witness involved in a case of a missing little girl.

And If I did not like the Sunshine laws in that state, I guess I would move.

 

[TxLady2]

It might've worked for the first week, but I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering why they haven't released anything further, for example if it was indeed blood in Isa's room, if so, who it belonged to. The test results are surely back by now, the initial results would've been available within 24 hours.

To me, at this point, it seems as though they tried to put out a fire with gasoline.

I sincerely hope you're right, and that this silence is just the calm before the storm.

They certainly cannot be criticised for thoroughness - the search they undertook was detailed and exhaustive.

I do question, however, why sensitive details like names, addresses and phone numbers were not redacted, especially so early in the investigation. No LE operates investigations to "assuage the public"...or they shouldn't...it should be the LAST concern in finding justice. IMO.

Would be nice to believe that's true in all cases, but sadly.... it's not. LE does not make the final decisions on how to investigate, that is dictated by the DA's office. The DA answers to the mayor, who goes along with the judge overseeing criminal cases in that district.
LE could care less what the public believes or thinks... but they don't call all the shots. Everybody answers to somebody else. It's all politics.

 

[TxLady2]

BBM
I really don't speak for other posters, and would not have a guess what others wonder; I can say that I certainly do NOT wonder why they have not released any results of any tests. I have never wondered why they have not.

TPD has been very clear on this matter from day one. They are not going to release anything that is sensitive to the investigation and eventual prosecution. The fact that they have not released anything is NOT evidence of anything. They have inasmuch stated this as well.

I have a difficult time understanding using the lack of evidence as evidence of anything.

They're not obligated to release the results of any tests on evidence they've collected. The public doesn't need to know every detail of everything they have, who the suspect is, or how close they are to an arrest.
Everybody got spoiled during the CA case, when we were inundated with details about forensic evidence and documents galore and subjected to a rehashing of these details on a daily basis. It doesn't happen that way in every case, thank goodness!

 

[TxLady2]

I do understand what you are saying but it seems to be SOP here in the states to seize and keep any vehicle that is found to have forensic evidence of a crime in it especially if the results pointed toward a homicide.

Of course LE has seized vehicles before but after forensically testing it and it yielding nothing.... the vehicle was returned to its rightful owner. But that is because the vehicle(s) yielded no results/evidence inside of it connecting the items found to any crime.

imo

If they went over the interior of that vehicle, and only found suspicious stains in one small part of the upholstery, it wouldn't be necessary to impound the entire vehicle. They could have taken small sections bearing those stains for further testing. They could also have found hair and fibers, and taken those into the lab as well. They don't necessarily have to keep the entire vehicle to be able to check it for evidence. If they've determined that the vehicle is not the crime scene, they aren't going to impound it when they already got everything they needed from it.

 

[TxLady2]

I 100% agree.

In view of this, I find it very strange that they would release anything AT ALL, especiallly within a month of Isabel's disappearance, in what is sure to be very early days of an investigation.

I sincerely wonder about the motivation behind this.

I hope the failure to redact details isn't indicative of the level of professionalism of the Tuscon PD but I fear it may be.

I wish to see the FBI become involved, especially as there may be an interstate/international kidnapping.

I find it strange that these docs were released as well. Which tends to make me think that they were not intended to be made public. I have entertained the thought that it was a leak.... someone in LE got their hands on these docs and wanted to score brownie points with the media. Wouldn't be the first time this has happened. There was a case in this area several years ago that ended in a mistrial because of a detail that was told to someone in confidence and someone blabbed it to a reporter. I don't have a link because I got that information from my son who works in LE, but he didn't tell me which case it was.
As for the private information contained in these docs, why didn't the media redact that information? Don't they hold some responsibility about what they publish?

 

[Madeleine74]

Would be nice to believe that's true in all cases, but sadly.... it's not. LE does not make the final decisions on how to investigate, that is dictated by the DA's office. The DA answers to the mayor, who goes along with the judge overseeing criminal cases in that district.
LE could care less what the public believes or thinks... but they don't call all the shots. Everybody answers to somebody else. It's all politics.

BBM. Actually the DA's office does not tell LE *how* to investigate and how to do their job. The DA advises LE when the case has enough evidence that the DA will take the case to the grand jury or whatever their procedure is to go forward with the case. The DA will also advise them when they do not have enough evidence and tells LE they (the DA) are not ready to proceed with the case. Once the DA determines they have enough evidence to get charges and feel they can prove those charges beyond a reasonable doubt, then an indictment usually happens and LE can make their arrest(s).

 

[Madeleine74]

Since AZ has some form of the "sunshine laws" like what we saw in FL, a release of some case documents to meet the requirements of disclosure should not be a surprise. The trick is to learn what the laws for freedom of information cover in the jurisdiction (AZ, in this case).

However, no LE agency ever has to release information which they deem to be sensitive to the preservation of their investigation/case. All freedom of info laws have that exclusion. Not even in the C.A. case did LE release everything they had in the months and years before the case went to trial.

 

[Dee10]

If they went over the interior of that vehicle, and only found suspicious stains in one small part of the upholstery, it wouldn't be necessary to impound the entire vehicle. They could have taken small sections bearing those stains for further testing. They could also have found hair and fibers, and taken those into the lab as well. They don't necessarily have to keep the entire vehicle to be able to check it for evidence. If they've determined that the vehicle is not the crime scene, they aren't going to impound it when they already got everything they needed from it.

Exactly, that is what I was trying to say. You said it so much clearer. If the vehicle was the crime scene or the vehicle was used as a weapon it would be a different story.

Personally, I don't think the one drop of blood on the driver's seat is Isa's and if it is it was, it is not proof necessarily that it is a homicide. In this particular case, if the vehicle itself is still in the families possession really doesn't indicate anything except they took the material the blood was on IMO.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

How the heck did they get a vehicle inside the courtroom??? Or even the building for that matter??? They would have to take it apart and put it back together.
Not arguing with you but talk about useless displays. Anybody with half a brain could figure out the mechanics of rape in a vehicle, they wouldn't have to see the vehicle itself.
The reason that Casey's vehicle was kept so long, IMO, is because George and Cindy didn't want it and weren't going to pay the tow fee to get it back. . Once they get every particle of evidence they need out of a vehicle, they inform the owners and expect them to retrieve it... they don't pay to have it towed back to them. (This is MOO, based on logic and common sense.) Who would want it anyway?? Caylee died in that car, I wouldn't want it either!!

I may have mispoken about bringing the vehicle into the actual courtroom but they do have the vehicle brought to the courthouse and parked in a secured space where the jury can walkout and see it. But in the rape case I was talking about the jury did see the vehicle owned by the rapist. The DA showed it to substantiate the victim's testimony when she said he used the seatbelt straps to restrain her in order to rape her.

I dont want to disagree with you but the car was still under the jurisdiction and control of LE/DA until the day she was found NG. That is when Cindy and George decided they did not want the car to be returned to them but destroyed instead. The CA defense expert had to get permission from the court Judge to see the car just a few months before trial when he had to admit in court that it still smelled like 'death.' Just like OJ got his possessions returned once he was found NG of murdering Ron and Nicole.

In the Scott Peterson case the DA was still in possession of his john boat and it was brought to the courthouse and setup outside for the jury to see it. Since he is filing an appeal I am sure the DA/LE has the boat still in their possession.

I still cant remember one case here in the states where a vehicle was seized and when tested it revealed forensic evidence of a crime that it was ever returned to the owner before a trial happens.

And if the trial ends in a conviction of Guilty then the vehicle still remains in evidence so that it can be there for anyone during the appeals process that should want to do further testing.

ETA: I was on a death penalty case a few years back and the spree killers killed two people that did not live far from me. They killed them when they were getting into their truck that was sitting in their own yard when they were leaving for work that morning. We were shown the actual truck that was parked in a secured location out from the courthouse. That case took three years to come to trial. They did not cut any of the fabric seats out that were soaked in blood. They took the truck in as evidence and forensically tested it in a controlled enclosed environment. They dont have to cut a piece out. They can do swabbings of the area and get the same result.We were also shown the vehicle that the three spree killers were in. It had blood in it belonging to the victims.

imo

 

[Dr. Know?]

We have the FOIA in AZ. Similar to The Sunshine Law but there is some difference.

I do believe that when you request or or given released documents that the media also has a responsibility to redact personal information. The reason I say this is I remember some of CA's documents released the media were busily redacting the docs before putting them online.

If I went to pickup released documents in a case at the court house, I'd get all the names or whatever LE left in it. It's public information. Tucson media just put it out there as given it appears. jmo

 

[tresptip]

After reading most of the news stories and interviews I can't see anything that would make the parents look suspicious.On the other hand why would abductors choose to kidnap a girl from an area that 1)has a huge wall that would make the abduction more difficult, 2)is just feet away from neighbors that could easily hear, 3) has dogs that bark.
The abductors sure took a big risk!

 

[GutFeeling!]

If they went over the interior of that vehicle, and only found suspicious stains in one small part of the upholstery, it wouldn't be necessary to impound the entire vehicle. They could have taken small sections bearing those stains for further testing. They could also have found hair and fibers, and taken those into the lab as well. They don't necessarily have to keep the entire vehicle to be able to check it for evidence. If they've determined that the vehicle is not the crime scene, they aren't going to impound it when they already got everything they needed from it.

With respect and I may have misunderstood your aim in the post but if LE were to find hair and fiber samples or even think they may exist in relationship to this case the car would certainly be impounded and taken to a controlled area for further investigation, it is not going to be left where it could be 'cleaned' up before police returned.

 

[Madeleine74]

After reading most of the news stories and interviews I can't see anything that would make the parents look suspicious.

And therein lies the issue. The news stories are not the investigation. We don't know all the evidence (be it forensic, physical, behavioral) LE has. We haven't conducted multiple interviews with the persons closest to Isa and we don't know what variations in interviews may exist.

I see questions thrown out all the time. Things like:

- Does anyone know the exact time RC left the house?
- What are the results found on the window in IC's room?
- What was Isa really wearing when she went to bed?

And then the sound of crickets are heard because no one outside the people involved and the people doing the investigation know this information, so asking questions to people who aren't part of the investigation doesn't result in any answers.

What's published is only what the media has been given approval to publish. There is much, much more that we'll likely never know until the case is litigated. Determining the culpability of any person in a case from news & media & gossip/blog articles is not reliable and it holds no sway in a courtroom. We actually know very little, which is the way it is in most cases.

 

[GutFeeling!]

I find it strange that these docs were released as well. Which tends to make me think that they were not intended to be made public. I have entertained the thought that it was a leak.... someone in LE got their hands on these docs and wanted to score brownie points with the media. Wouldn't be the first time this has happened. There was a case in this area several years ago that ended in a mistrial because of a detail that was told to someone in confidence and someone blabbed it to a reporter. I don't have a link because I got that information from my son who works in LE, but he didn't tell me which case it was.
As for the private information contained in these docs, why didn't the media redact that information? Don't they hold some responsibility about what they publish?

Gosh no, FOI makes documents be released, LE have no say in it in the big picture. I say that because initially requests are sent to LE agencies, they have a certain amount of time to respond, if they say no they will not be releasing information it goes up the ladder. The State attorney has the final say as to what will and won't be released.

It is not the media's responsibility to decide what can and can't be released, I do agree with you that out of respect they should, but it isn't their responsibility. they are entitled to print all kinds of information.

A good example that I follow very closely in child abuse cases is to ensure that any information I have been given never ever leads tto that child being identified, even if that means not releasing the name of the abuser. In my mind that child has been through enough let alone Mrs Smith up the road putting one and one together to know that Mary Jones has been abused by her step father for years. To me that is low and nasty tabloid styled reporting in a town the size of mine. I have argued till I am blue in the face to protect the abused with editors and managing editors. I don't care that the police have given me the abusers name age and address, my concern is the abused.
And I have done stories to protect those people and the TV stations and other newspapers have released the names - that is their call and their right, I however will never ever do that just because I can.

 

[Dr. Know?]

FOIA's 9 Exemptions when releasing record requests.

http://www.osec.doc.gov/omo/foia/exemptions.htm

 

[GutFeeling!]

How the heck did they get a vehicle inside the courtroom??? Or even the building for that matter??? They would have to take it apart and put it back together.
Not arguing with you but talk about useless displays. Anybody with half a brain could figure out the mechanics of rape in a vehicle, they wouldn't have to see the vehicle itself.
The reason that Casey's vehicle was kept so long, IMO, is because George and Cindy didn't want it and weren't going to pay the tow fee to get it back. . Once they get every particle of evidence they need out of a vehicle, they inform the owners and expect them to retrieve it... they don't pay to have it towed back to them. (This is MOO, based on logic and common sense.) Who would want it anyway?? Caylee died in that car, I wouldn't want it either!!

I think Ocean meant into the court room that cars are taken, put in secured areas and juries taken to them. This happened last week in Bell County, not that the car was actually bought in (although I have seen HUGE car parts in courts rooms - you get an idea something is car related when you see a car door with other evidence lol )