AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #11

[dsntslp]

I think now it is an and/or situation : "Special note: Texas EquuSearch can only accept a missing person case if it has been filed with the appropriate law enforcement agency, a case number has been assigned, and law enforcement gives their consent for Texas EquuSearch to become involved. Requests for Texas EquuSearch’s assistance must be made by the family of the missing person and/or the law enforcement agency handling the case." Looks to me that LE can request without family now. Read this here on some other case...I'm tired so I don't know which poster actually alerted to this change. :waitasec:

I agree, my wording in my post is off.
I am blaming it on being tired.

Thanks, truly.

 

[Donjeta]

Gil Abeyta's infant son was abducted in the middle of the night, from his crib in 1986. Still hasn't been found.
It is a very odd case, it is believed Gil's son was taken by the somewhat unbalanced woman he had been having an affair with.

http://www.findchristopher.com/

Gil attempted to contact Isa's family because he's worked in Mexico... he's found people taken to Mexico, he felt like he could help.
According to what he said on HLN, he hasn't gotten a response from them. He seemed quite mystified by their reaction to it all.

Snipped for space.
I am not really familiar with the Abeyta case but GA did the same thing in the Lisa Irwin case, attempted to contact the family (basically he flew into town without being asked to and went to knock on their door), received no response for a while and then went on a talk show circuit to complain about his reception. Later he met with the family and complained that they weren't interested enough. I wonder if his own strategies in approaching the families in the midst of a turmoil could be improved.

 

[carole]

Snipped for space.
I am not really familiar with the Abeyta case but GA did the same thing in the Lisa Irwin case, attempted to contact the family (basically he flew into town without being asked to and went to knock on their door), received no response for a while and then went on a talk show circuit to complain about his reception. Later he met with the family and complained that they weren't interested enough. I wonder if his own strategies in approaching the families in the midst of a turmoil could be improved.

I remember that he tried to meet with Baby Lisa's parents. I have no idea what happened to Baby Lisa, but I think I might not be wanting to hear from someone whose child was forever lost, especially at first, when I'm hoping against hope that my child will be coming home.

 

[GutFeeling!]

Yep, the dogs must have been drinking while listening to their iPods with their earbuds. They didn't hear anything.

Can you link me to that story please? I must have missed it. The dogs could have heard even with an Ipod, it really depends what they were listening to. Do YOU know their playlist? AND how many have they had to drink? I can't believe this family allows their dogs to drink. AND they close their eyes on camera AND answer questions badly. :maddening:

 

[dsntslp]

:what:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:


:rocker::woohoo:


2 FUNNY!

 

[Whisperer]

Did I just read that there is no description of the clothes Isa was last wearing?

 

[GutFeeling!]

I am not even sure there were THREE dogs anymore. Original reports said 3 dogs, but we have only seen 2, I believe. The little white one Isa got for Christmas, and the large shepherd mix we saw inside the front window.

You forgot the one wearing the Ipod

Sorry I am done now. :worms:

 

[Theforeigner]

I have zero respect for the writer.

I understand that several people have no respect for the writer, and I respect that, however I don´t know anything about that writer, just found the analysis and found it spot on.

 

[GutFeeling!]

Did I just read that there is no description of the clothes Isa was last wearing?

Yes you did. Apparently (I haven't verified this) LE told them not to mention it.

 

[MsFacetious]

There IS a description of the clothes Isa was last seen wearing.
It has been much debated why she was in clothes, remember?
She was last seen wearing a blue tank top and navy blue basketball shorts.
http://www.missingkids.com/missingk...NCMC&seqNum=1&caseLang=en_US&searchLang=en_US

Snipped for space.
I am not really familiar with the Abeyta case but GA did the same thing in the Lisa Irwin case, attempted to contact the family (basically he flew into town without being asked to and went to knock on their door), received no response for a while and then went on a talk show circuit to complain about his reception. Later he met with the family and complained that they weren't interested enough. I wonder if his own strategies in approaching the families in the midst of a turmoil could be improved.

This was on HLN so I'm going from memory...I do remember Gil saying that he DID NOT want to just show up without being invited.

That he wanted to talk to the family and inform them of what they would be able to do for them and give them the choice.
I don't get the impression he called and said "Hi, my son was abducted in 1986 and we never found him..."

It seemed like it was more of a "We work to find missing children, we've had success in Mexico and we do not charge anything..."
He didn't get involved until the Mexico connection was mentioned, was the impression that I got from how the conversation went.

Is there anyone who had a HAPPY ending who now runs something like TES?
Plenty are involved in advocacy but not running a search organization or anything like that.

I can only think of those still missing or found dead... Laura Smither, Amber Dubois, Laura Miller... and Garrett Bardsley.

But, then again I also didn't realize what a controversial case Christopher Abeyta's was. So, who knows.
I broke my own "research it obessively to make sure you can't get in trouble for it before you post it" rule. :banghead:

Can you link me to that story please? I must have missed it. The dogs could have heard even with an Ipod, it really depends what they were listening to. Do YOU know their playlist? AND how many have they had to drink? I can't believe this family allows their dogs to drink. AND they close their eyes on camera AND answer questions badly. :maddening:

It doesn't just depend on their playlist, it depends on the volume.
Not to mention, it may not be an issue of how many they had to drink... but WHAT they had to drink.
Not to mention which dog it was. We have at least a little dog and a medium size dog here. Different alcohol tolerances! :needdrink:
I mean one bottle might be nothing... unless it was a bottle of Vodka!
And what if they had access to a keg? I had a 90 pound guard dog who once jumped up and bumped the tap on the keg.
She was a useless guard dog that night... let me tell you. :floorlaugh:

Squirrels also have a rather low alcohol tolerance. Once again... my wonderful guard dog also taught me that.
So... if squirrels got some and then the dogs were trying to chase the squirrels... well... it could have really been VERY distracting.
When a drunk dog is trying to chase drunk squirrels... the meat truck could rob your house and they would have no clue. :floorlaugh:

Feel free to substitute squirrels for any small, furry little creature that is in the area.
I am obviously being Facetious just in case anyone thinks I am seriously suggesting this scenario. :seeya:
It is obviously time for bed here. :what:

 

[FrayedKnot]

No where have they named them specifically and said they are the POIs.

The entire population of Tucson are POIs.

LE said that EVERYONE is a POI in this case. And that includes the parents. And as such, they are open to scrutiny. Especially since, when kids go missing, it's usually a family member or someone close with the family who is responsible.

If LE said that NOBODY was a POI then, well, that's a different story.

MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Patty G]

I agree.

Plus, I think Patty G. posted earlier a confirmation, straight from a member of the family, what the actual relationship is/

That particular 'uncle' is the son of a woman who married into the family.

JM is a cousin to Isa; not an uncle. JM's mother is related to Isa's mother's side of the family then JM's mother remarried into the M side of the family.

 

[FrayedKnot]

And how in any way whatsoever does that actually answer for the above question being asked?? The question is why when specific question is asked about this investigation to LE IT IS OK THAT THE ANSWER IS THEY CANNOT COMMENT DUE TO IT INTERFERING WITH THE CASE..

And then those same exact specific questions are asked of the parents IT IS NOT OK when they give the same exact answer to the same exact question LE did.. That they CANNOT COMMENT DUE TO INTRFERING WITH THE CASE..??

"parents are persons of interest and LE is not" IS NOT AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT mck16 asked.. The parents are NOT POIs first of all and even if they were its completely irrelevant to the question of why can LE state no comment due to investigation and it's ok.. But when parents give the same answer that they cannot comment due to investigation it is NOT OK and the parents are lying and hiding..

The question posed by mck16 is very very good one that IMO does deserve to be thought about and answered as to why would someone expect the parents to give an answer that could interfere with the investigation.. If that is what LE states is the reason that they cannot answer particular questions then obviously the parents cannot answer the question either for those exact same reasons.. If you believe LE and the que they are giving(as what is exactly what many give as their reason for suspicions of the parents because LE seem to be).. Then why then is LE word stating that certain questions cannot be answered NOT BEING TAKEN A QUE FROM?? IOW LE says that those questions cannot be answered at this time due to the investigation.. Take LE word for what they are saying and therefor it's not logical to expect that the parents are going to give any different answer than just exactly what LE have.. THE QUESTIONS CANNOT BE ANSWERED AT THIS TIME DUE TO THE INVESTIGATION.. You believe in this LE? Then accept the answer that LE is giving to the particular questions that NEITHER THEY, NOR THE PARENTS CAN ANSWER AT THIS TIME DUE TO THE INVESTIGATION.

mck16's question is an extremely good one with an extremely important point that specifically points out what is an obvious contradiction by some that LE answer is GOOD ENOUGH.. But that the parents same EXACT answer to THE SAME EXACT question IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH..

It points out the obvious issue there..


____________________...
Posting via mobile as well as via tablet so plz forgive all typos.. Btwn the sucky touch keyboard and the obsessive auto-correct it's a big ol' mess :crazy:

The question was "Why is it that LE is BELIEVED and the family isn't?".

To which I replied that the family is under investigation and LE is not. So an answer given by the family is open to scrutiny.

And yes, I do put trust in LE and choose to believe they are doing their best to find Isa.

I still have not seen any evidence that LE told the Celises not to speak about the investigation. If you have such proof, would you please provide it? If you do not have any such proof, then it is your OPINION and as such, no more correct or valuable than anyone else's here.

And anyway, my answer wasn't about whether LE had muzzled the family, just about why some of the public was skeptical that this was the case. Which is what mck16 asked.

Please read carefully before attacking my posts.

TIA!

MOO, totally MOO, and nothing but MOO, to which I am entitled!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Taminator]

Those are some lucky dogs. Drinking, Ipods, wonder if they also were watching a good movie on tv.

Seriously, it had to take time to do everything they seem to be implying was done. How could anyone sleep through that? :banghead:

Unless the perp brought in a mariachi band in with him, I can totally see there being little evidence. They wear gloves these days. Someone could have inadvertantly told the perp the sleeping arrangements of the dogs, (i.e: They lock the dogs in the garage at night or the dogs sleep in the boys room at night.)

If I let my dog wander around the house all night, no one would sleep. My dog barks at every little sound. Birds chirp ALL night here.

If you go in, wearing gloves, snatch a kid, what evidence are you going to leave? He's taking the evidence with him.

 

[TxLady2]

While I do feel that something is off with SC, based on the interviews, times he has talked. I am in no way saying he directly did something to Isa. I just believe he knows more than some people think he does and possibly knows more than he initially told LE.

I just feel, based on nothing more than a gut feeling, that something is hinky with him, what it is...I have no idea to be quite honest. I feel like Becky has no idea whatsoever what might have happened to Isa or why it happened. All of the above is just IMO and based on nothing more than personal feelings.

I can understand this feeling, but I guarantee that in most cases, there are things that the family knows that we don't know, and things that they have told LE over time that we don't know and may never know. Memory is a tricky thing, sometimes we think something happened one way but another person remembers it a different way. Or details come to us that we didn't think of the first time we were asked.

Neither one of the parents give me any kind of hinky feeling, because IMO, it's not fair to judge a parent in this situation without some real reason. And I mean something other than a person closing their eyes, or their voice breaking. I always ask myself, how would I come across to the public if I were thrown into a situation like this.

I see comments all the time regarding them not crying or showing emotions in these interviews. Strong emotions cannot be sustained over an extended period of time. It's been 2 weeks, the tears are drying up, the shock is wearing off, and now comes the numbness, where they are just going through the motions of being alive while their daughter could be laying out there dead somewhere. How could we expect them to stay the same, day after day? It's impossible.

 

[TxLady2]

JM is a cousin to Isa; not an uncle. JM's mother is related to Isa's mother's side of the family then JM's mother remarried into the M side of the family.

Then, technically he is a step cousin.... not blood related at all.

And before anybody jumps all over me for saying that, we have step relatives in our family and we don't distinguish them from the blood relatives. I do understand the dynamics of blended families. Just sayin'... he is not blood kin and that could matter, in the end.

 

[Thinkzerz]

Those are some lucky dogs. Drinking, Ipods, wonder if they also were watching a good movie on tv.

Seriously, it had to take time to do everything they seem to be implying was done. How could anyone sleep through that? :banghead:

Where is this about ipods and a movie? Did i miss something?

 

[insatiable]

Then, technically he is a step cousin.... not blood related at all.

And before anybody jumps all over me for saying that, we have step relatives in our family and we don't distinguish them from the blood relatives. I do understand the dynamics of blended families. Just sayin'... he is not blood kin and that could matter, in the end.

If JM's Mom is blood related to Becky then JM is blood related as well.
I thought PattyG said she was related to Becky, right?
Unless she means that JM's mom was married to someone in Becky's family and then divorced and remarried JM's dad.

 

[Isabelle]

LE said that EVERYONE is a POI in this case. And that includes the parents. And as such, they are open to scrutiny. Especially since, when kids go missing, it's usually a family member or someone close with the family who is responsible.

If LE said that NOBODY was a POI then, well, that's a different story.

MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And LE would be included as POI's!

 

[TxLady2]

The question was "Why is it that LE is BELIEVED and the family isn't?".

To which I replied that the family is under investigation and LE is not. So an answer given by the family is open to scrutiny.

And yes, I do put trust in LE and choose to believe they are doing their best to find Isa.

I still have not seen any evidence that LE told the Celises not to speak about the investigation. If you have such proof, would you please provide it? If you do not have any such proof, then it is your OPINION and as such, no more correct or valuable than anyone else's here.

And anyway, my answer wasn't about whether LE had muzzled the family, just about why some of the public was skeptical that this was the case. Which is what mck16 asked.

Please read carefully before attacking my posts.

TIA!

MOO, totally MOO, and nothing but MOO, to which I am entitled!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So basically, you want LE to come out and say that they told the parents not to speak out about certain aspects of the investigation. I guess it wouldn't help much to tell you that this is standard procedure in most cases. (My son has been in LE for over 20 years, this is what he tells me.) It really depends on the judgement of whoever is running the investigation, but in some cases, LE will tell the family very little simply because they can't trust them not to let it slip in public. In others, they just don't trust the parents yet and haven't been able to 100% clear them.
It could also be that LE warned them in a general way not to talk about the investigation, but didn't make it clear which parts they could or couldn't address. Therefore they're unsure what they can talk about (or just don't want to talk about it), so they use that excuse.
IMHO, it always ticks me off when some reporters start asking questions revolving around the case itself. The parents should not have to answer such questions, and if it were me, I would refer them to LE every time. If they keep asking, I would walk away and refuse to talk to them. The parents are not doing the investigating, that's LE's job, it's not fair for reporters to be asking if they passed a polygraph. That's just stupid!
Sorry... I might be off track from your post, but I can see your point.