Isabel Celis -- Missing 4/20/12

Starting a thread for Isabel Celis.

Thank you Ann for the following info & pics.

Endangered Missing


ISABEL CELIS




DOB: Aug 27, 2005
Age Now: 6
Missing: Apr 20, 2012
Missing From:
TUCSON
AZ
United States
Sex: Female
Race: Hispanic
Hair: Lt. Brown
Eyes: Hazel
Height: 3'8" (112cm)
Weight: 44lbs (20kg)

Both photos shown are of Isabel. She was last seen at home at approximately 11:30 p.m. on April 20, 2012. Isabel is missing one top and one bottom tooth. She was last seen wearing a blue tank top and navy blue basketball shorts.

Source:

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PubCaseSearchServlet?act=viewPoster&caseNum=1193092&orgPrefix=NCMC&searchLang=en_US
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children - Isabel Celis - Poster

Finding Isabel - Full Coverage

Latest Post: 05/11/2012 06:44 PM First Post: 04/21/2012 02:33 PM (81 stories)49 pictures47 videos

Latest UpdateCPS involved in Celis case

05/11/2012 06:44 PM


TUCSON - Friday, Tucson Police confirmed Child Protective Services is now involved in the investigation into the disappearance of missing six-year-old Isabel Celis.

Read more:
http://www.kvoa.com/full-coverage/finding-isabel/#fcanchor

----------------

Tamta - Updating your post with some info from the link. - Julie

http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/151198035.html
Police: Celis parent's living separately; 1 parent not allowed contact

TPD said the developments leading to the custody status are “significant." They also have Ariz. Child Protective Services taking an active role in the case.

TPD tells KGUN9 News that missing Isabel Celis' parents are living separately at this time, and one parent is not allowed contact.

TPD Children Only Placed With One Parent

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18325000/tpd-cps-involvement-with-celis-family-increases

Snipped

According to the release, detectives shared with CPS information regarding the welfare of the older children. Yesterday, CPS personnel met with detectives and the family at police headquarters.

It was after this assessment, the release said, that CPS increased its involvement.

Tamta wrote:Finding Isabel - Full Coverage

Latest Post: 05/11/2012 06:44 PM First Post: 04/21/2012 02:33 PM (81 stories)49 pictures47 videos

Latest UpdateCPS involved in Celis case

05/11/2012 06:44 PM


TUCSON - Friday, Tucson Police confirmed Child Protective Services is now involved in the investigation into the disappearance of missing six-year-old Isabel Celis.

Read more:
http://www.kvoa.com/full-coverage/finding-isabel/#fcanchor

----------------

Tamta - Updating your post with some info from the link. - Julie

Thanks!

Got distracted by PMs.

Tamta wrote:

Tamta wrote:Finding Isabel - Full Coverage

Latest Post: 05/11/2012 06:44 PM First Post: 04/21/2012 02:33 PM (81 stories)49 pictures47 videos

Latest UpdateCPS involved in Celis case

05/11/2012 06:44 PM


TUCSON - Friday, Tucson Police confirmed Child Protective Services is now involved in the investigation into the disappearance of missing six-year-old Isabel Celis.

Read more:
http://www.kvoa.com/full-coverage/finding-isabel/#fcanchor

----------------

Tamta - Updating your post with some info from the link. - Julie

Thanks!

Got distracted by PMs.

LOL, that happens.

Tucson police: Isabel Celis' older brothers now staying with one parent


Snipped

CPS has since the beginning been involved in the investigation, which is common practice, police said.


Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/tucson-police-isabel-celis-older-brothers-now-staying-with-one/article_8530d4ec-9bc3-11e1-b0ae-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz1ucyTmjHX

Exclusive: Recording from day Isabel vanished


http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/05/10/jvm-isabel-celis-audio-recording

Does anyone else detect a difference in the voice of the dispatcher, ie are there 2 different dispatchers- like 2 different calls being responded.

First voice at show opening.

Second voice after JVM intro.

Police: Celis parents living separately; 1 parent not allowed contact
Child Protective Services takes active role in case of missing 1st grader

Snipped
BBM

TPD said the developments leading to the custody change are “significant."

More@ Link
http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/151198035.html

This cannot be good. They have separated Dad from the rest of the family. IMO both parents sent up big red flags, it bothers me they didn't speak in the beginning and when they finally did, it seemed insincere. No real emotion from either parent.

djmed99 wrote:This cannot be good. They have separated Dad from the rest of the family. IMO both parents sent up big red flags, it bothers me they didn't speak in the beginning and when they finally did, it seemed insincere. No real emotion from either parent.

I am not sure who it is, but I too would assume Sergio.

I did begin to feel skeptical that their emotional expressions were not matching the content of what the situation or what they were saying.

Tamta wrote:Exclusive: Recording from day Isabel vanished


http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/05/10/jvm-isabel-celis-audio-recording

Does anyone else detect a difference in the voice of the dispatcher, ie are there 2 different dispatchers- like 2 different calls being responded.

First voice at show opening.

Second voice after JVM intro.

Just listened to the JVM segment. I wonder if the "sister" that allegedly called in the missing persons case was not one of her brothers and they were mistaken or the dispatcher got it wrong because they were saying their sister was missing.

Seems something is up for sure.

nanaof4 wrote:

Tamta wrote:Exclusive: Recording from day Isabel vanished


http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/05/10/jvm-isabel-celis-audio-recording

Does anyone else detect a difference in the voice of the dispatcher, ie are there 2 different dispatchers- like 2 different calls being responded.

First voice at show opening.

Second voice after JVM intro.

Just listened to the JVM segment. I wonder if the "sister" that allegedly called in the missing persons case was not one of her brothers and they were mistaken or the dispatcher got it wrong because they were saying their sister was missing.

Seems something is up for sure.

She did not seem like she was stumbling.

These are some thoughts:

1.More than one call to 911 was made, with different callers.

2.A woman connected to Justin was there.

3.A Sister (nun) from the church next door became involved.

I really think it is 1 and 2 personally.

I think those are two different dispatchers we hear.

Tamta wrote:Exclusive: Recording from day Isabel vanished


http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/05/10/jvm-isabel-celis-audio-recording

Does anyone else detect a difference in the voice of the dispatcher, ie are there 2 different dispatchers- like 2 different calls being responded.

First voice at show opening.

Second voice after JVM intro.

yes, it does sound like different voices. the 1st voice does say "in reference to...the missing 6 year old" so it seems that is 2nd dispatch call. i think the 2nd voice we hear is actually the first dispatch to go out...JVM transciption across the screen is wrong. at the beginning of that call i hear "there's a" missing child as opposed to "the" missing child which is on the screen. i don't know how that all works in regards to 911 and dispatch, if multiple units are called or if it was separate 911 calls. i just hope with all this new CPS stuff going on that there will be an arrest soon, or a confession-anything that leads us to Isabel and the truth.

nanaof4 wrote:

Tamta wrote:Exclusive: Recording from day Isabel vanished


http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/05/10/jvm-isabel-celis-audio-recording

Does anyone else detect a difference in the voice of the dispatcher, ie are there 2 different dispatchers- like 2 different calls being responded.

First voice at show opening.

Second voice after JVM intro.

Just listened to the JVM segment. I wonder if the "sister" that allegedly called in the missing persons case was not one of her brothers and they were mistaken or the dispatcher got it wrong because they were saying their sister was missing.

Seems something is up for sure.

"Complainant is the sister."

Listen to video @ :01

Older voice
flatter tone
smooth intonation
listen to her say clothing description


compare with voice
@1:59

-younger sound
-different intonation
-puts different accent on 'Celis"
-draws out 4'
-stutters at pink tank top

there were at least two 911 calls.

djmed99 wrote:This cannot be good. They have separated Dad from the rest of the family. IMO both parents sent up big red flags, it bothers me they didn't speak in the beginning and when they finally did, it seemed insincere. No real emotion from either parent.

I felt the dad was over acting the first press conference the parents did. He didn't act natural, he acted more like someone trying too hard to act a part and had his eyes closed and not looking at the camera. Of course, that could be nerves, but most parents who have been proven to be innocent when their children go missing will look into the camera and make their plea or statement.

It is hard to make a call on mannerisms alone because we don't know what the person is like on a regular day. However, you would think the dad, being a actor, would be used to being in front of an audience. Although, I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been brought up several times.

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:Exclusive: Recording from day Isabel vanished


http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/05/10/jvm-isabel-celis-audio-recording

Does anyone else detect a difference in the voice of the dispatcher, ie are there 2 different dispatchers- like 2 different calls being responded.

First voice at show opening.

Second voice after JVM intro.

yes, it does sound like different voices. the 1st voice does say "in reference to...the missing 6 year old" so it seems that is 2nd dispatch call. i think the 2nd voice we hear is actually the first dispatch to go out...JVM transciption across the screen is wrong. at the beginning of that call i hear "there's a" missing child as opposed to "the" missing child which is on the screen. i don't know how that all works in regards to 911 and dispatch, if multiple units are called or if it was separate 911 calls. i just hope with all this new CPS stuff going on that there will be an arrest soon, or a confession-anything that leads us to Isabel and the truth.

As the dispatcher is giving the vitals other information can be coming in to the center about the incident if another call is coming in related to the incident and the call was made from a landline. If it was made from a cell phone then it goes to somewhere else and then is re routed to the dispatch center.

I wonder if there were 2 consecutive calls or two calls made one by cell phone and one by land line.

Thanks for starting this thread.

Stunning to learn that CPS is involved and now the parents are living separately and the boys are with mom.

Puzzler wrote:Thanks for starting this thread.

Stunning to learn that CPS is involved and now the parents are living separately and the boys are with mom.

I missed something - I can't find any article that says the boys are with Becky (?) or is that speculation.

Also, CPS can ban a parent if they knowingly exposed the children to a threatening person even if they themselves were not the threat. Could go either way since there was questionable circumstances with the uncle/cousin who is related to the mom. Justin had drug charges, right? And he was allowed to live in their house for some time. If Becky knew this and allowed him there, CPS may consider her to be the threatening element. My bets are on the dad however.

http://blinkoncrime.com/2012/05/11/isabel-celis-breaking-news-child-services-removes-sons-from-sergio-celis-care-and-placed-with-becky-celis-and-relative/

Isabel Celis Breaking News: Child Services Removes Sons From Sergio Celis Care and Placed With Becky Celis and Relative

In the latest development in the April 21st disappearance of missing Tucson child Isabel Celis, her father Sergio has been stripped of his physical custodial rights of her brothers.
There has been no confirmation from Tucson Police about the children’s removal and placement, and CPS has only confirmed the boys have been placed with one parent.


Sources inside the investigation have confirmed to www.blinkoncrime.com that evidence gleaned in the investigation has warranted alternative placement of the couples oldest children in the wake of the disappearance of their daughter, Isabel.


The boys, whose names have been reported previously elsewhere but are being intentionally withheld by www.blinkoncrime.com have been placed together, not separately.

http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/151198035.html

Police: Celis parents living separately; 1 parent not allowed contact
Child Protective Services takes active role in case of missing 1st grader

CREATED 4:08 PM

Reporter: Kevin Keen

Web Producer: Ina Ronquillo and Marissa Pasquet

TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Tucson police tell KGUN9 News the siblings of 6-year-old Isabel Celis, missing for 21 days, are now in the custody of one parent and the other parent is not allowed to see them, TPD said the developments leading to the custody change are “significant." They also have Ariz. Child Protective Services taking an active role in the case.

TPD tells KGUN9 News that missing Isabel Celis' parents are living separately at this time, and one parent is not allowed contact.
Lt. Fabian Pacheco told KGUN9 detectives, as recently as Thursday, “came into some information which they considered to be important enough to share with Child Protective Services. They contacted these folks, they sent one of their personnel here to police headquarters.” (snip)

Isa's brothers staying with 1 parent, relative


Police officers did not have to serve a temporary custody notice, he said.

That's when children are taken from their parents because they are endangered.

"We just wanted CPS to come in and perform an assessment based on information from detectives," he said.


Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/isa-s-brothers-staying-with-parent-relative/article_284272fb-80be-5d95-8b33-f3eb7b22b0f2.html#ixzz1ufDkvNQH
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/isa-s-brothers-staying-with-parent-relative/article_284272fb-80be-5d95-8b33-f3eb7b22b0f2.html

Stolat wrote:

Puzzler wrote:Thanks for starting this thread.

Stunning to learn that CPS is involved and now the parents are living separately and the boys are with mom.

I missed something - I can't find any article that says the boys are with Becky (?) or is that speculation.

Also, CPS can ban a parent if they knowingly exposed the children to a threatening person even if they themselves were not the threat. Could go either way since there was questionable circumstances with the uncle/cousin who is related to the mom. Justin had drug charges, right? And he was allowed to live in their house for some time. If Becky knew this and allowed him there, CPS may consider her to be the threatening element. My bets are on the dad however.

It has only been inferred that the brothers are living with Becky, the mother.

I would agree with you on placing your bet.

There was no emergency protection order served, this was executed by way of parental agreement with CPS.

See my recent post just up thread!

Sounds like CPS requested a voluntary "Safety Resource" plan.

A safety resource plan is something drawn up between parents and CPS. Basically, it states the children are not safe in this persons care and another person is named as a potential caregiver.

Once a home inspection, a backround check and drug screening are established, then the parent/anyone, would be approved.

This would put custody of the children with Becky, who was approved. The father may have done something simple like failed a drug test~ in that case, he would have to go to drug classes and do whatever it takes to satisfy CPS.

Calypso wrote:Sounds like CPS requested a voluntary "Safety Resource" plan.

A safety resource plan is something drawn up between parents and CPS. Basically, it states the children are not safe in this persons care and another person is named as a potential caregiver.

Once a home inspection, a backround check and drug screening are established, then the parent/anyone, would be approved.

This would put custody of the children with Becky, who was approved. The father may have done something simple like failed a drug test~ in that case, he would have to go to drug classes and do whatever it takes to satisfy CPS.

IT does sound probable.

LE stated that after follow up questioning they moved to gain CPS assessment.

I am not clear on drug connections in this case to date, although I would not rule it out.
My speculation is that the dogs detected cadaverine and not narcotics- but who knows?

in regard to this recent development, my speculation is that the younger son mentioned something.

I also think it may be functioning as a tactical move on the part of LE to try to pressure Becky into divulging more information that they feel she is withholding. Based on their behavioral analysis, they may suspect that she is withholding important information because she wants to protect her family.

@ Tamta~

For me, this case seems to lack urgency.

Maybe if the father was involved with some drug dealers they would do this? IDK just wondering out loud.

Calypso wrote:@ Tamta~

For me, this case seems to lack urgency.

It does.

During the local media press conference Sergio mentioned that Isabel got a new puppy for Christmas...that has always bothered me a bit. First of all they already had 2 dogs, their yard is not that big...and from his most recent court appearance they were not the most responsible pet owners (no license or vaccinations), i'll let the 'dogs on loose' slide because dogs are notorious escape artists. They are a very busy family an a new puppy is lot of work.
Secondly...a new puppy for a little girl is a sure way into her heart. Wonder who gave it to her and whose idea it was for Isabel, at 6 years of age, to have her own puppy. I know all families operate differently-our pets are always "family pets", noone gets to take ownership-everyone is responsible within their limits to care for the pets in our home.
I don't even remember in what context he brought up the puppy, i can't find a full transcript of the interview.
May be absolutely nothing-but it's been in the back of mind, and in light of new events i wonder if the children were "silenced" about secrets, and the puppy was a way to keep Isabel quiet.

Tamta wrote:Police: Celis parents living separately; 1 parent not allowed contact
Child Protective Services takes active role in case of missing 1st grader

Snipped
BBM

TPD said the developments leading to the custody change are “significant."

More@ Link
http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/151198035.html

HOLY POOP! This family imploding, could this be the odd behavior of the parent's NOT doing any MEDIA for 10 freakin days? A "NO CONTACT " from a parent is BIG in this case, my money is on Sergio.

Just speculating:
Could it have been neither parent was home AFTER Becky left for work?
Could one of the parent's have been involved in an affair?
Could someone else come into the home, wake the boys & they all started looking or Isabel?
Could it have been a relative.

This REALLY sucks, I hate to read this, exactly where in the world is little Isa & does anyone know the source for the information on the "dog hitting in the home?"

Tamta wrote:

Calypso wrote:@ Tamta~

For me, this case seems to lack urgency.

It does.

I second that emotion! It's so hinky, Sergio fake crying & not looking up on the TODAY interview, Becky, imo, looking so sad, not anxious or nervous imo, just sad.

Honeysage wrote:During the local media press conference Sergio mentioned that Isabel got a new puppy for Christmas...that has always bothered me a bit. First of all they already had 2 dogs, their yard is not that big...and from his most recent court appearance they were not the most responsible pet owners (no license or vaccinations), i'll let the 'dogs on loose' slide because dogs are notorious escape artists. They are a very busy family an a new puppy is lot of work.
Secondly...a new puppy for a little girl is a sure way into her heart. Wonder who gave it to her and whose idea it was for Isabel, at 6 years of age, to have her own puppy. I know all families operate differently-our pets are always "family pets", noone gets to take ownership-everyone is responsible within their limits to care for the pets in our home.
I don't even remember in what context he brought up the puppy, i can't find a full transcript of the interview.
May be absolutely nothing-but it's been in the back of mind, and in light of new events i wonder if the children were "silenced" about secrets, and the puppy was a way to keep Isabel quiet.

Is it on line now, the PC?
I wonder why that was mentioned.

Well, the fact that it was likely Sergio who had parental rights stripped, indicates a strong behavioral concern which could be:

-substance related
-inappropriate contact
-psycho-sexual (pornography)
-physically abusive
-colllusion: being conscious, permissive or negligent of other influences in the environment which would pose a considerable threat
-negligent behavior: like leaving children unattended

SweetT wrote:Maybe if the father was involved with some drug dealers they would do this? IDK just wondering out loud.

Maybe if they were hanging out in the house that night.

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:During the local media press conference Sergio mentioned that Isabel got a new puppy for Christmas...that has always bothered me a bit. First of all they already had 2 dogs, their yard is not that big...and from his most recent court appearance they were not the most responsible pet owners (no license or vaccinations), i'll let the 'dogs on loose' slide because dogs are notorious escape artists. They are a very busy family an a new puppy is lot of work.
Secondly...a new puppy for a little girl is a sure way into her heart. Wonder who gave it to her and whose idea it was for Isabel, at 6 years of age, to have her own puppy. I know all families operate differently-our pets are always "family pets", noone gets to take ownership-everyone is responsible within their limits to care for the pets in our home.
I don't even remember in what context he brought up the puppy, i can't find a full transcript of the interview.
May be absolutely nothing-but it's been in the back of mind, and in light of new events i wonder if the children were "silenced" about secrets, and the puppy was a way to keep Isabel quiet.

Is it on line now, the PC?
I wonder why that was mentioned.

Well, the fact that it was likely Sergio who had parental rights stripped, indicates a strong behavioral concern which could be:

-substance related
-inappropriate contact
-psycho-sexual (pornography)
-physically abusive
-colllusion: being conscious, permissive or negligent of other influences in the environment which would pose a considerable threat
-negligent behavior: like leaving children unattended

there is no scheduled PC until Monday. Sergio talked about the puppy during the local media interview they did. thing is, if any of the above happened wouldn't that warrant an arrest? somehow whatever happened was enough for CPS to remove an adult and not allow contact but not enough for LE to arrest...so what lies between the two? has to be something they (LE) cannot yet prove 100% but enough to warrant serious caution from CPS.

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:During the local media press conference Sergio mentioned that Isabel got a new puppy for Christmas...that has always bothered me a bit. First of all they already had 2 dogs, their yard is not that big...and from his most recent court appearance they were not the most responsible pet owners (no license or vaccinations), i'll let the 'dogs on loose' slide because dogs are notorious escape artists. They are a very busy family an a new puppy is lot of work.
Secondly...a new puppy for a little girl is a sure way into her heart. Wonder who gave it to her and whose idea it was for Isabel, at 6 years of age, to have her own puppy. I know all families operate differently-our pets are always "family pets", noone gets to take ownership-everyone is responsible within their limits to care for the pets in our home.
I don't even remember in what context he brought up the puppy, i can't find a full transcript of the interview.
May be absolutely nothing-but it's been in the back of mind, and in light of new events i wonder if the children were "silenced" about secrets, and the puppy was a way to keep Isabel quiet.

Is it on line now, the PC?
I wonder why that was mentioned.

Well, the fact that it was likely Sergio who had parental rights stripped, indicates a strong behavioral concern which could be:

-substance related
-inappropriate contact
-psycho-sexual (pornography)
-physically abusive
-colllusion: being conscious, permissive or negligent of other influences in the environment which would pose a considerable threat
-negligent behavior: like leaving children unattended

there is no scheduled PC until Monday. Sergio talked about the puppy during the local media interview they did. thing is, if any of the above happened wouldn't that warrant an arrest? somehow whatever happened was enough for CPS to remove an adult and not allow contact but not enough for LE to arrest...so what lies between the two? has to be something they (LE) cannot yet prove 100% but enough to warrant serious caution from CPS.

He is clearly under serious investigation,

perhaps LE has some serious forensics indicating his guilt and for the best interest of the children he has been completely stripped of all parental rights.

Or

LE has enough to get CPS involved to put strategic stress on becky for a confession.

Removal of parent could be the first step leading up to an arrest. If an arrest is to be made, they want a tight case, no screw ups, no things left untied.....

While we see things as super slow (and they do seem this way), things could be progressing at a steady pace behind the scenes.

This is clearly a significant move and I am thinking they are pressing hard behind the scenes...I wont give my true prediction but I do have some strong ones....I wont be surprised of things moving quickly from here on out....

*GEL* wrote:Removal of parent could be the first step leading up to an arrest. If an arrest is to be made, they want a tight case, no screw ups, no things left untied.....

While we see things as super slow (and they do seem this way), things could be progressing at a steady pace behind the scenes.

This is clearly a significant move and I am thinking they are pressing hard behind the scenes...I wont give my true prediction but I do have some strong ones....I wont be surprised of things moving quickly from here on out....

I completely agree.

It is also a way to send a message that LE suspects him without naming him officially as a suspect, thus ratcheting up the psychological pressure which may influence others who have involvement.

http://www.kvoa.com/full-coverage/finding-isabel/#fcanchor


Tucson Police tell News 4 the parents are living separately because of this and one of the parents is not allowed any kind of contact.


Not any kind of contact allowed - sounds like "more" that not passing a drug test to me.

Puzzler wrote:http://www.kvoa.com/full-coverage/finding-isabel/#fcanchor


Tucson Police tell News 4 the parents are living separately because of this and one of the parents is not allowed any kind of contact.


Not any kind of contact allowed - sounds like "more" that not passing a drug test to me.

The surest thing to say seems to be that the parent is deemed to be negative influence and the children are deemed as potential victims if not victims already.

This is very significant.

As well this does not appear to be a court ordered custodial change but yet a voluntary one, though perhaps with some coercion.

I hope this move does not backfire and usher in some big shot, pro-bono, media hungry defense counsel.

It is a risky move on the behalf of LE.
I hope they really have the goods.

Tamta wrote:

Puzzler wrote:http://www.kvoa.com/full-coverage/finding-isabel/#fcanchor


Tucson Police tell News 4 the parents are living separately because of this and one of the parents is not allowed any kind of contact.


Not any kind of contact allowed - sounds like "more" that not passing a drug test to me.

The surest thing to say seems to be that the parent is deemed to be negative influence and the children are deemed as potential victims if not victims already.

This is very significant.

As well this does not appear to be a court ordered custodial change but yet a voluntary one, though perhaps with some coercion.

I hope this move does not backfire and usher in some big shot, pro-bono, media hungry defense counsel.

It is a risky move on the behalf of LE.
I hope they really have the goods.

Agree!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/isabel-celis-missing-tucson-girls-father-barred-contact/story?id=16334922
Isabel Celis: Missing Tucson Girl's Father Barred From Contact With Her Brothers


The father of missing Tucson 6-year-old Isabel Celis has been told by authorities he cannot have contact with the girl's two older brothers, who are now in the custody of their mother Rebecca, ABC News has learned.

Very Bizarre.... No contact... but story reads "A source close to the investigation said the development does not mean that investigators are turning their focus on Sergio Celis in the disappearance of his daughter."

What does that mean... don't even know how to speculate on that one!

justanopinion wrote:Very Bizarre.... No contact... but story reads "A source close to the investigation said the development does not mean that investigators are turning their focus on Sergio Celis in the disappearance of his daughter."

What does that mean... don't even know how to speculate on that one!

Maybe they are trying to play it down so they do not lawyer up!!

Well its not a sexual deal or there would be charges. So to me that leaves drugs or he was possibly "Telling the kids what to say"? I don't know I'm still trying to figure this one out. It would have to be really bad to have NO CONTACT.. So they dont want him talking, emailing, phoning nothing. It really makes me think it is due to some collusion or "Story" But I will entertain any ideas as to what it could be, but it would have to be pretty bad in my opinion.

Tucson PD: 'We have hope' Isabel is alive

snipped

Hawke said there is information investigators can't release.

"Some of that information is still tentative, and it's being confirmed," Hawke said. "Some of that is confirmed information. But again, just because of the possibility of affecting our investigation negatively, we have to keep that stuff close to the cuff."


http://www.kpho.com/story/18276721/tucson-pd-we-have-hope-isabel-is-alive

SweetT wrote:Well its not a sexual deal or there would be charges. So to me that leaves drugs or he was possibly "Telling the kids what to say"? I don't know I'm still trying to figure this one out. It would have to be really bad to have NO CONTACT.. So they dont want him talking, emailing, phoning nothing. It really makes me think it is due to some collusion or "Story" But I will entertain any ideas as to what it could be, but it would have to be pretty bad in my opinion.

It is a missing person's case which may be evolving into a criminal investigation.
I do not know Arizona's statutes but perhaps enforcement of no contact is protocol when building a case against someone as a suspect in a missing person's case.

Too bad it was not enforced against Josh Powell!

I can not form any speculation regarding another reason yet.

Tamta wrote:

SweetT wrote:Well its not a sexual deal or there would be charges. So to me that leaves drugs or he was possibly "Telling the kids what to say"? I don't know I'm still trying to figure this one out. It would have to be really bad to have NO CONTACT.. So they dont want him talking, emailing, phoning nothing. It really makes me think it is due to some collusion or "Story" But I will entertain any ideas as to what it could be, but it would have to be pretty bad in my opinion.

It is a missing person's case which may be evolving into a criminal investigation.
I do not know Arizona's statutes but perhaps enforcement of no contact is protocol when building a case against someone as a suspect in a missing person's case.

Too bad it was not enforced against Josh Powell!

I can not form any speculation regarding another reason yet.

I would also think that but this was not a decision by LE it was due to CPS..otherwise I might think that too.???

SweetT wrote:

Tamta wrote:

SweetT wrote:Well its not a sexual deal or there would be charges. So to me that leaves drugs or he was possibly "Telling the kids what to say"? I don't know I'm still trying to figure this one out. It would have to be really bad to have NO CONTACT.. So they dont want him talking, emailing, phoning nothing. It really makes me think it is due to some collusion or "Story" But I will entertain any ideas as to what it could be, but it would have to be pretty bad in my opinion.

It is a missing person's case which may be evolving into a criminal investigation.
I do not know Arizona's statutes but perhaps enforcement of no contact is protocol when building a case against someone as a suspect in a missing person's case.

Too bad it was not enforced against Josh Powell!

I can not form any speculation regarding another reason yet.

I would also think that but this was not a decision by LE it was due to CPS..otherwise I might think that too.???

Has any good sleuthing been done on Sergio?

What is known about his associations and background?

Tamta: I'm sure some people have done some, but I am not aware of anything other than someone who posted at THM and I dont recall whom stating that Sergio was not a good person and that was from their inside source or something like that. So I dont know that we can take that for a fact. I dont like to speculate about someone like that though.

SweetT wrote:Tamta: I'm sure some people have done some, but I am not aware of anything other than someone who posted at THM and I dont recall whom stating that Sergio was not a good person and that was from their inside source or something like that. So I dont know that we can take that for a fact. I dont like to speculate about someone like that though.

I agree, nor do I.

I think he was arraigned on 4/19 for charges not specified in his record.
(odd timing)

He went to court for dog citations after Isa was reported missing.

I do not recall him having any kind of criminal past.