AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #13

[Whisperer]

BAEZ on Dr Drew tonight, cant wait, I know he isnt popular around here but I really like that dude, hell of an attorney.

:thud:

.....*&*&^%

 

[Madame_X]

Unfortunately, I'm sure people will. I also believe I know this woman from my nephew's case a few years back. If the same person, I shudder.

Pretty sure she is just a spokesperson:


https://www.azdes.gov/common.aspx?menu=128&menuc=12&id=11114

 

[helpful]

This is going to get ugly, in my opinion.

 

[Madeleine74]

What are the reasons, for all you experts out there, that he would be removed from the kids but still be allowed to see Becky?

I'm no expert, but a child protective order is for one purpose: to protect minor children. If the spouse needs protection and legal distance, s/he can file a restraining order to achieve that.

 

[AnaTeresa]

What are the reasons, for all you experts out there, that he would be removed from the kids but still be allowed to see Becky?

Well, total non-expert answer, but in cases I've seen at work, CPS or the courts will sometimes issue a no-contact with spouse and children, usually when there are issues of domestic violence, specific pointed threats, significant drug issues - very serious things. In other cases I've seen through work, people have been kept from their children but not spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends with whom the child(ren) are living because of allegations of drug use that is a problem but not as severe (sort of a sliding scale), things like child endangerment where they've done something stupid and have to take parenting classes but it wasn't necessarily malicious/abusive, or mental illness.

This is just anecdote, though - so take it with a grain of salt. I'm just basing this off a handful of cases I've seen.

 

[Prof]

JVM will have 911 tape at top of hour...

 

[SmoothOperator]

He[Villasenor] said Sergio and Becky Celis are still cooperating with the investigation, but he said the relationship between the parents and police is "somewhat more strained now."

Villasenor said as far as he knew, neither parent has any attorney.


Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/cri...dec-11e1-b1f1-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz1ut21fm2v

Above BBM. While IMO at this point its quite possibly unwise that they do not have an Atty.. it does however IMO lend more credence to their not being involved in their daughters disappearance.. jmo and I could be wrong for feeling that way but IMO. It certainly seems as tho if one were involved and LE has the heat turned up this high on them tthat if they had half a brain cell they'd be retaining a lawyer FOR ABSOLUTE CERTAIN!!! ..again jmo, tho!

 

[Patty G]

Press Conference - 5/14/12 @3:00 PM Tuscon Time

http://www.myspace.com/video/565006329/isabel-celis-press-conference-5-14-12-audio-only/108733030

 

[pieper4]

Pretty sure she is just a spokesperson:

Director of Communications - Tasya Peterson

https://www.azdes.gov/common.aspx?menu=128&menuc=12&id=11114

Digging through my case file now... this was ~3-4 years ago w/my nephew. I know her name...

 

[Anita Richman]

What are the reasons, for all you experts out there, that he would be removed from the kids but still be allowed to see Becky?

I'm not an expert, but I'll add my 2 cents worth.

Sergio seems to be the more emotional of the two parents. He may be vocal about his fears about what is happening to Isa and/or just so consumed with the case that he's putting fears in the boys. Their physical wellbeing might not be in jeopardy, it might be their mental health that CPS is protecting.


:moo::moo::moo:

 

[Whisperer]

With a tragedy like this, it is the norm for parents relationship to be strained and many part ways. In a normal relationship, one will blame the other for the loss. Some can work it out.

This situation is odd, has been odd. It appears there are more dynamics going on than just blame. One has to wonder if maybe the father is blaming one of the boys.

Looking forwrd to the 911..

 

[~n/t~]

What are the reasons, for all you experts out there, that he would be removed from the kids but still be allowed to see Becky?

I'll stick to my theory that he snapped. I don't think he harmed one of the boys but he may have thrown furniture around or said something and the boys freaked.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

How to Interpret LE-speak:

1. LE is not going to publicly say they are focusing in on someone. Why? Because when a case goes to trial they do not want a defense attorney to tell the jury..."my client was railroaded! The police never considered other scenarios or other possible perps!" They have to be open to any and all possibilities. That doesn't mean they actually believe in these other theories!

2. It's all about preserving the case for the DA for eventual litigation, whether it's via a trial or a plea agreement. EVERYTHING SAID is to not actually say anything to implicate any one person. Why? See #1 above.

3. "We were told that..." It means exactly that. LE was not in the house. They only know what they were told by the people they are interviewing. What they are not saying is whether they believe what they were told or not. And LE is not going to tell the public what they really believe. Why? See #1 above.

4. "We're not focusing on any one thing, but are considering all avenues." They are focusing in, of course they are. That doesn't mean they won't consider information if it is real, verifiable and leads them to a resolution. But don't be misled. LE has a focus. It may pan out, it may not.

5. "The family is cooperating" or "Mr XYZ or Mrs XYZ is cooperating." This means...kind of nothing. It's LE-speak for "don't publicly call anyone a suspect because that can only cause trouble for us. We want them to keep talking if possible so we can get more information."

6. "We have not named any person as a suspect or POI" This means...they have not publicly said anything about who they suspect. For legal reasons they do not want to back themselves into a corner or create any kind of adversarial situation. It does not mean they don't suspect someone. It means they haven't NAMED anyone (publicly).

But many of them will say they have a POI(s) or a suspect in mind. Of course they will refuse to name them by name. That way it does not give them any legal liability.

I think it means everything that even a month later and all the stress they are under they are continuing to cooperate and talk with LE everyday and have not obtained a lawyer. That speaks volumes, imo.

Imo, the Chief was honest. They are still going over and over this case from investigating external to internal sources and have found nothing linking anyone to Isa's disappearance, imo..

 

[Whisperer]

It is either the father is a danger to the kids or the kids are a danger to the father.

I very much prefer the way California LE behave in a missing child case than Arizona.

 

[Boodles]

I agree with you completely.

My opinion is Sergio is a threat to himself, but as a precautionary measure they have to separate him from the children. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the boys were expressing the symptoms Sergio was having when they went back to school. The whole CPS 'increased involvement' seemed to happen after the boys went back to school, and as we all surely know--teachers are mandatory reporters of suspected abuse or neglect. Maybe the boys felt neglected by their father.

Guilt can be an ugly thing. It's my opinion that Sergio feels tremendous guilt and trauma. Imagine waking up like its any other day, going to your child's room and they aren't there.

I know a lot of people have the opinion that he is a drug-addicted, human smuggling, closet homosexual, but I'm just not seeing it.

JMO

BBM. What symptoms?

 

[Anita Richman]

I'm no expert, but a child protective order is for one purpose: to protect minor children. If the spouse needs protection and legal distance, s/he can file a restraining order to achieve that.

There is no r.o. or o.o.p. The separation is voluntary and not a legal one.

 

[missy1974]

For me, it is what I thought all weekend, that perhaps Dad was encouraging the boys to say certain things about what happened. JMO

Hi everyone, been reading to catch up the last few days, thanks to everyone for keeping us updated.

This is my thinking too. That he was coaching them in what to say or what not to say. It would make sense.

 

[cluciano63]

CPS can't tell two adults that they can't be in contact with each other, unless one has filed an RO. So that is not so weird.

IF Sergio turns out to be the target of the invesitigation (IF)- at least it seems as though LE may have some info that may help them. JMO I just want to see one of these child missing cases solved.

 

[Madeleine74]

[/b]

BBM

Actually there was an article this morning that Tucson PD, along with several agencies from the city, are hosting a community forum today to discuss the recent events involving children. Sounds to me that they think it's very important the public is aware and educated.

This to me is different than the PD issuing a specific warning to parents. A community group meeting is to make parents in the community feel safe and connected. The public should always "be aware" and "look out for children." It doesn't mean the Isa case specifically points to a kidnapper. Part of a PD's outreach is to work with concerned community groups and be more visible and seen in a positive light.

 

[Theforeigner]

Concerning the recent PC...IMHO:

The police are fully entitled to lie, tell the truth, or mix lie and truth, as long as they do it in order to help their investigation.

The police very 1st priority, when speaking through the media , is to give info that they want the suspect to belive, in other words, they first of all "talk directly to" their suspect through their press conferences.

We need to keep this in mind IMHO...