Isabel Celis -- Missing 4/20/12

Ellie Tza wrote:

Honeysage wrote:sad that a vigil for Isabel turned into a support Sergio charade, maybe one day Isa's name will be the first one out of Becky's mouth rather than the last.

I'm sure there were more words said by Becky, before AND after the clip. The "news" only runs with what is sensational. Who knows what she said first. Or last. Also, I'm sure they asked her a direct question about Sergio, in order to obtain the sound byte.

true...but it would have been so easy and more appropriate for Becky to say "Sergio can speak for himself, i'm here for Isabel". even his sister started off her statement defending Sergio wanting compassion for him...who is going to speak for Isabel???

Ellie Tza wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://video.foxnews.com/v/1647897013001/where-is-isabel-celis
Where is Isabel Celis?

video only at link

That was, indeed, an interesting video. I find that in my hunger to know what happened to Isabel, I can't tear my eyes away from anything related to the case. But, is it only me, or do some of the rest of you out there also get an uneasy feeling about so much speculation, conjecture, and guesswork passed off under the heading of "news?" I can't help but wonder if this sort of thing helps Isabel, or the case, in any way.

On a somewhat related topic, it does seem en vogue to demonize family members of missing children, and take every flaw in their lives as proof that they're evil. I don't think that's unique to this case, by any means, but, for some reason it's making me more uneasy in this case than others I have followed. Yes, I do know that the vast majority of these cases do wind up involving family members. Maybe I'm just trying to distance myself, emotionally, from these cases, but I have a very hard time pointing the finger at a parent who has lost their CHILD, who may be the victim of one of the worst-case scenarios that I can imagine, without any hard and fast proof. Maybe I'm just being an optimist for a change, but I'm not convinced that Sergio is guilty of anything, other than being a fairly average man, husband, and father, with his fair share of quirks thrown in. I plan to operate under the assumption that he is innocent until proven guilty, while scrutinizing any facts that present themselves. My main hope is that the recent focus on Sergio doesn't narrow the focus of the investigation, media involvement, or public perception to the point where the truth is ignored or overlooked, volunteers stop volunteering, or we all determine someone to be guilty well before we even know what happened on April 20th or 21st.

As always, that's just my two cents' worth!

As in, "Enough with the soup and the salad, bring in the meat, " ?

Honeysage wrote:

Ellie Tza wrote:

Honeysage wrote:sad that a vigil for Isabel turned into a support Sergio charade, maybe one day Isa's name will be the first one out of Becky's mouth rather than the last.

I'm sure there were more words said by Becky, before AND after the clip. The "news" only runs with what is sensational. Who knows what she said first. Or last. Also, I'm sure they asked her a direct question about Sergio, in order to obtain the sound byte.

true...but it would have been so easy and more appropriate for Becky to say "Sergio can speak for himself, i'm here for Isabel". even his sister started off her statement defending Sergio wanting compassion for him...who is going to speak for Isabel???

IMO, Sergio is entitled to a defense, Becky is entitled to stand by her man, and Isabel is entitled to exhaustive physical efforts by her family, LE, and the public, to be located as soon as possible.

Let's have at least 2 searches for every one vigil and fundraiser maybe?

Media does like to throw in its own slant, for sure.
This way they can later say, "All signs pointed to it. We were the first to break it."
It may as simple as the word choices, the way they interview a witness, which picture to print.

What is the difference between these:
I made an error.
You made a mistake.
She blew it and he flubbed it. They goofed it.
But I made an error.

i keep going back to the Breann Rodriguez case...the parents were heavily scrutinized YET they took every opportunity to speak to the media (and they did have language barrier), they did physical searches, and admitted on national TV that they had failed their polygraph tests. they were completely innocent! what mattered to them was finding their daughter and they did not care at all about how they appeared to the public-they did not ask for anything for themselves, not privacy-not compassion...they cared only about Breann (God Rest Her Soul!). even if Isa's parents are completely innocent-i have no apologies for them. they are not putting Isa first! get out of the hole you're hiding in-and start pleading for your daughter!!!!!
and away i go...

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18573339/update-on-celis-case-today-at-2-pm
Update on Celis case today at 2 p.m.

TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) -
The Tucson Police Department has scheduled a press conference at 2 p.m. Monday to discuss the latest on Isabel Celis' case.

Honeysage wrote:i keep going back to the Breann Rodriguez case...the parents were heavily scrutinized YET they took every opportunity to speak to the media (and they did have language barrier), they did physical searches, and admitted on national TV that they had failed their polygraph tests. they were completely innocent! what mattered to them was finding their daughter and they did not care at all about how they appeared to the public-they did not ask for anything for themselves, not privacy-not compassion...they cared only about Breann (God Rest Her Soul!). even if Isa's parents are completely innocent-i have no apologies for them. they are not putting Isa first! get out of the hole you're hiding in-and start pleading for your daughter!!!!!
and away i go...

10-4.

Is there a live stream link?

TIA

LIVE STREAM:

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/category/218560/kold-news-13-live-video

Calypso wrote:LIVE STREAM:

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/category/218560/kold-news-13-live-video

is it on now? all i see is black screen

Honeysage wrote:true...but it would have been so easy and more appropriate for Becky to say "Sergio can speak for himself, i'm here for Isabel". even his sister started off her statement defending Sergio wanting compassion for him...who is going to speak for Isabel???

I guess that's true, she certainly could have. But this is her husband, not some stranger or acquaintance. I have no doubt she genuinely believes she KNOWS with 100% certainty that he has no involvement. She trusts him. She's been married to him for 15 years, and been with him for who knows how much longer than that. And, she was asked about him, specifically. If she had, indeed, said "Sergio can speak for himself," wouldn't that have been a deliberate distancing of herself from him? The statement analysis folks would have been all over that. Can you tell me the media (and most of the public) would not have then interpreted her response as an indication that she feels he's guilty and is throwing him under the bus? At the very least that would have been relationship-damaging (I know my husband would NEVER live it down if he did something like that under the best of circumstances!)

Calypso wrote:LIVE STREAM:

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/category/218560/kold-news-13-live-video

I assume I missed it, any new news?

Ellie Tza wrote:

Calypso wrote:LIVE STREAM:

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/category/218560/kold-news-13-live-video

I assume I missed it, any new news?

it's at 2:00pm (they don't do Daylight Savings so they are currently on Pacific Time)

Ellie Tza wrote:

Honeysage wrote:true...but it would have been so easy and more appropriate for Becky to say "Sergio can speak for himself, i'm here for Isabel". even his sister started off her statement defending Sergio wanting compassion for him...who is going to speak for Isabel???

I guess that's true, she certainly could have. But this is her husband, not some stranger or acquaintance. I have no doubt she genuinely believes she KNOWS with 100% certainty that he has no involvement. She trusts him. She's been married to him for 15 years, and been with him for who knows how much longer than that. And, she was asked about him, specifically. If she had, indeed, said "Sergio can speak for himself," wouldn't that have been a deliberate distancing of herself from him? The statement analysis folks would have been all over that. Can you tell me the media (and most of the public) would not have then interpreted her response as an indication that she feels he's guilty and is throwing him under the bus? At the very least that would have been relationship-damaging (I know my husband would NEVER live it down if he did something like that under the best of circumstances!)

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this response. I have just about HAD it reading at one particular statement analysis blog - it blows my mind how the exact same words within the exact same type context from two different cases, will inevitably be skewed into meaning whatever supports the "analyst(s)" opinion of the person who spoke them. The very same words that "prove" that one person is telling the truth in one case, will be twisted, when spoken in response to similar questioning, by someone in another case, to "indicate deception."

I would love to say right here that, since we're all truly trying to get some grasp on actuality here (with so very little information from LE, understandably), and attempt to only speculate in a responsible manner (which, I'm happy to say, I've seen demonstrated well here at the RC forum), it's incredibly inaccurate to state that Becky does not use her daughter's name. I went through every news article and transcript I could locate (and, I'm nowhere near a pro at locating stuff online, but I gave it 4 hours' worth of a shot), and copied down every single place where I could find that Becky has spoken her child's name, and many times, repeatedly, within the same answer. I tried to post them all in response to one blog post at an SA site, but there were FAR too many, and the text box wouldn't accept that much text. I would have had to use four 4,000+ character text boxes to get in all the quotes from where Becky uses Isa's name. If one would only take a moment to read the context and use a bit of reason, one would discover that, in individual sentences where Becky uses "she," or "her," she's either responding to a specific question asked by a reporter, or she's just used Isabel's name earlier in that statement, and no one on the planet speaks with the redundancy that it seems SA "experts" expect out of "innocent" people.

My next mission was born out of the disgust with "professionals," or "SA experts," for insisting, over and over, that Becky refers to Isa in the past-tense (which, is, apparently, the SA kiss of death), does not worry if Isa's being cared for, and various other assertions. In case anyone is interested, I have full links and exact quotes where Isa's mother speaks very clearly of her daughter in the present-tense, and does NOT change tenses during the discussion. In fact, I have yet to read a quote from Becky where she does NOT discuss her daughter in the present-tense. She's also expressed verbally her anxiety over whether or not Isa's being fed and taken care of. She has expressed nothing to the contrary of either of these things, and so, SA "experts" are having to take her other words and twist them out of their context in order to drum up suspicion of her amongst their readers. Now, this woman may be guilty as home-grown sin, but none of the things being used to accuse her within statement analysis are accurate information. If she's guilty of wrongdoing here, it's NOT because she wasn't frantic and had to be calmed by the 911 dispatcher, because she was; it's NOT because she doesn't use her daughter's name, because she does; and it's NOT because she spoke of her daughter's character in the past-tense, because she hasn't.

Since RC seems to be a very reputable source for discussion and information, I hope its readers and contributors can all use the reason and logic that I observe in Ellie Tza's statements. An understanding of the way some will twist anything and everything a person says...no matter what they say, and an insistence on not being one of those people, does a forum good. Even as a newbie here (Hinky refugee), I quickly noticed the lengths to which this forum goes to keep from fueling rumors and blind speculation. Thank you, Ellie, for your excellent example.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18575838/tpd-scheduled-briefings-will-end
TPD: Scheduled briefings will end

Police have searched lakes and landfills, contacted all 542 registered sex offenders in the area, and canvassed neighborhoods in an effort to find Isabel.

Soprano1 wrote:

Ellie Tza wrote:

Honeysage wrote:true...but it would have been so easy and more appropriate for Becky to say "Sergio can speak for himself, i'm here for Isabel". even his sister started off her statement defending Sergio wanting compassion for him...who is going to speak for Isabel???

I guess that's true, she certainly could have. But this is her husband, not some stranger or acquaintance. I have no doubt she genuinely believes she KNOWS with 100% certainty that he has no involvement. She trusts him. She's been married to him for 15 years, and been with him for who knows how much longer than that. And, she was asked about him, specifically. If she had, indeed, said "Sergio can speak for himself," wouldn't that have been a deliberate distancing of herself from him? The statement analysis folks would have been all over that. Can you tell me the media (and most of the public) would not have then interpreted her response as an indication that she feels he's guilty and is throwing him under the bus? At the very least that would have been relationship-damaging (I know my husband would NEVER live it down if he did something like that under the best of circumstances!)

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this response. I have just about HAD it reading at one particular statement analysis blog - it blows my mind how the exact same words within the exact same type context from two different cases, will inevitably be skewed into meaning whatever supports the "analyst(s)" opinion of the person who spoke them. The very same words that "prove" that one person is telling the truth in one case, will be twisted, when spoken in response to similar questioning, by someone in another case, to "indicate deception."

I would love to say right here that, since we're all truly trying to get some grasp on actuality here (with so very little information from LE, understandably), and attempt to only speculate in a responsible manner (which, I'm happy to say, I've seen demonstrated well here at the RC forum), it's incredibly inaccurate to state that Becky does not use her daughter's name. I went through every news article and transcript I could locate (and, I'm nowhere near a pro at locating stuff online, but I gave it 4 hours' worth of a shot), and copied down every single place where I could find that Becky has spoken her child's name, and many times, repeatedly, within the same answer. I tried to post them all in response to one blog post at an SA site, but there were FAR too many, and the text box wouldn't accept that much text. I would have had to use four 4,000+ character text boxes to get in all the quotes from where Becky uses Isa's name. If one would only take a moment to read the context and use a bit of reason, one would discover that, in individual sentences where Becky uses "she," or "her," she's either responding to a specific question asked by a reporter, or she's just used Isabel's name earlier in that statement, and no one on the planet speaks with the redundancy that it seems SA "experts" expect out of "innocent" people.

My next mission was born out of the disgust with "professionals," or "SA experts," for insisting, over and over, that Becky refers to Isa in the past-tense (which, is, apparently, the SA kiss of death), does not worry if Isa's being cared for, and various other assertions. In case anyone is interested, I have full links and exact quotes where Isa's mother speaks very clearly of her daughter in the present-tense, and does NOT change tenses during the discussion. In fact, I have yet to read a quote from Becky where she does NOT discuss her daughter in the present-tense. She's also expressed verbally her anxiety over whether or not Isa's being fed and taken care of. She has expressed nothing to the contrary of either of these things, and so, SA "experts" are having to take her other words and twist them out of their context in order to drum up suspicion of her amongst their readers. Now, this woman may be guilty as home-grown sin, but none of the things being used to accuse her within statement analysis are accurate information. If she's guilty of wrongdoing here, it's NOT because she wasn't frantic and had to be calmed by the 911 dispatcher, because she was; it's NOT because she doesn't use her daughter's name, because she does; and it's NOT because she spoke of her daughter's character in the past-tense, because she hasn't.

Since RC seems to be a very reputable source for discussion and information, I hope its readers and contributors can all use the reason and logic that I observe in Ellie Tza's statements. An understanding of the way some will twist anything and everything a person says...no matter what they say, and an insistence on not being one of those people, does a forum good. Even as a newbie here (Hinky refugee), I quickly noticed the lengths to which this forum goes to keep from fueling rumors and blind speculation. Thank you, Ellie, for your excellent example.

Soprano,

I am so grateful for your response
and

I AM COMPLETELY ON THE SAME PAGE AS YOU!!!

Can you see me doing snow angels on it????

THM and this blog continue to be a special place and deeply human.

Thank you to all who participate here!

Honeysage wrote:http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18575838/tpd-scheduled-briefings-will-end
TPD: Scheduled briefings will end

Police have searched lakes and landfills, contacted all 542 registered sex offenders in the area, and canvassed neighborhoods in an effort to find Isabel.

Oh that is so sad. Isabel is on her way to being a cold case isn't she? This is devastating.

Soprano1 wrote:

Ellie Tza wrote:

Honeysage wrote:true...but it would have been so easy and more appropriate for Becky to say "Sergio can speak for himself, i'm here for Isabel". even his sister started off her statement defending Sergio wanting compassion for him...who is going to speak for Isabel???

I guess that's true, she certainly could have. But this is her husband, not some stranger or acquaintance. I have no doubt she genuinely believes she KNOWS with 100% certainty that he has no involvement. She trusts him. She's been married to him for 15 years, and been with him for who knows how much longer than that. And, she was asked about him, specifically. If she had, indeed, said "Sergio can speak for himself," wouldn't that have been a deliberate distancing of herself from him? The statement analysis folks would have been all over that. Can you tell me the media (and most of the public) would not have then interpreted her response as an indication that she feels he's guilty and is throwing him under the bus? At the very least that would have been relationship-damaging (I know my husband would NEVER live it down if he did something like that under the best of circumstances!)

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this response. I have just about HAD it reading at one particular statement analysis blog - it blows my mind how the exact same words within the exact same type context from two different cases, will inevitably be skewed into meaning whatever supports the "analyst(s)" opinion of the person who spoke them. The very same words that "prove" that one person is telling the truth in one case, will be twisted, when spoken in response to similar questioning, by someone in another case, to "indicate deception."

I would love to say right here that, since we're all truly trying to get some grasp on actuality here (with so very little information from LE, understandably), and attempt to only speculate in a responsible manner (which, I'm happy to say, I've seen demonstrated well here at the RC forum), it's incredibly inaccurate to state that Becky does not use her daughter's name. I went through every news article and transcript I could locate (and, I'm nowhere near a pro at locating stuff online, but I gave it 4 hours' worth of a shot), and copied down every single place where I could find that Becky has spoken her child's name, and many times, repeatedly, within the same answer. I tried to post them all in response to one blog post at an SA site, but there were FAR too many, and the text box wouldn't accept that much text. I would have had to use four 4,000+ character text boxes to get in all the quotes from where Becky uses Isa's name. If one would only take a moment to read the context and use a bit of reason, one would discover that, in individual sentences where Becky uses "she," or "her," she's either responding to a specific question asked by a reporter, or she's just used Isabel's name earlier in that statement, and no one on the planet speaks with the redundancy that it seems SA "experts" expect out of "innocent" people.

My next mission was born out of the disgust with "professionals," or "SA experts," for insisting, over and over, that Becky refers to Isa in the past-tense (which, is, apparently, the SA kiss of death), does not worry if Isa's being cared for, and various other assertions. In case anyone is interested, I have full links and exact quotes where Isa's mother speaks very clearly of her daughter in the present-tense, and does NOT change tenses during the discussion. In fact, I have yet to read a quote from Becky where she does NOT discuss her daughter in the present-tense. She's also expressed verbally her anxiety over whether or not Isa's being fed and taken care of. She has expressed nothing to the contrary of either of these things, and so, SA "experts" are having to take her other words and twist them out of their context in order to drum up suspicion of her amongst their readers. Now, this woman may be guilty as home-grown sin, but none of the things being used to accuse her within statement analysis are accurate information. If she's guilty of wrongdoing here, it's NOT because she wasn't frantic and had to be calmed by the 911 dispatcher, because she was; it's NOT because she doesn't use her daughter's name, because she does; and it's NOT because she spoke of her daughter's character in the past-tense, because she hasn't.

Since RC seems to be a very reputable source for discussion and information, I hope its readers and contributors can all use the reason and logic that I observe in Ellie Tza's statements. An understanding of the way some will twist anything and everything a person says...no matter what they say, and an insistence on not being one of those people, does a forum good. Even as a newbie here (Hinky refugee), I quickly noticed the lengths to which this forum goes to keep from fueling rumors and blind speculation. Thank you, Ellie, for your excellent example.

Soprana1, very well said. As a THM moderator, KZ had pointed out, about a week or so before THM shut down, that Statement Analysis is NOT a science. It seems the thread was becoming a SA thread and KZ encouraged those wishing to discuss SA to go to the SA site and give the writer of the article the opportunity to respond to their comments. That ended the SA discussion on THM.

I have been here since 2010 and what I love about this site is that rumors are not allowed here.

A few months ago, we had a poster drop in and on one of the threads that I was monitoring closely and keeping updated, the poster started posting rumors and was getting a lot of rumors from a Facebook page and posting it while I'm on the comment board updating with the current mainstream articles for that day.

This happened late at night and one of the RC members who had been here far longer than me, put the brakes on it until J4A could delete the nasty rumors in the morning.

None came from mainstream media which RC supports versus a rumor mill on a Facebook page!

I would like to add to your comment. I am well connected to Law Enforcement (LE) in my area and am a graduate of COP Academy. I've had 16 weeks of intense training and it really gives one an insight into LE as a great part is hands on training in addition to class room training and testing.

When LE interviews a person, they are trained to "compute" what is being said in real time and follow up with additional questions. They are trained to recognize "red flags", inconsistencies, etc. They do not sit down for hours and pick apart every word some one said. It is "think on your feet."

http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/152333585.html
Day 31: "We continue to explore every possible scenario in this case"

Police continue to investigate the "stranger danger" angle and are also investigating the extended Celis family. They continue to stress that nobody has been ruled out as a suspect.

Pacheco said, "you never know when a break in the case will come, or where it will come from."

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18575838/tpd-scheduled-briefings-will-end
TPD: Scheduled briefings will end

video of press conference at link

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/tucson-police-to-re-interview-sex-offenders-in-search-for/article_68256400-a38c-11e1-9ffc-0019bb2963f4.html
Tucson police to re-interview sex offenders in search for Isabel

Tucson police investigators will return to areas around the home of Isabel Celis to question residents who may not have been interviewed earlier in the search, an official said Monday.

Police will leave fliers at homes if they cannot immediately talk to residents, said Lt. Fabian Pacheco, a police spokesman, at Monday’s news briefing.

Questions on the fliers:

Roberto A. Villaseñor

Chief of Police

1. Did you observe anything that struck you as unusual or out of the ordinary at anytime prior to the incident or since
the incident?

2. Were there any delivery people or solicitors in your area two weeks prior to this incident or since the incident?

3. Has there been any construction in your area prior to or since the incident?

4. Were there any yard sales, parties or other large gatherings prior to the incident?

5. Did you notice any unusual vehicles or vehicles that you did not recognize in your area prior to the incident?

6. Do you have surveillance cameras in use at your home?

7. Do you know if any of your neighbors have surveillance cameras in use?

Soprano,Ellie,Tamta and Ann-I didn't quote your posts for space. I want to thank you, too. I find the analysis you spoke of interesting, but found I was getting nuts trying to apply that method. I questioned someone if a post was a rumor, opinion or fact. I never did get an answer! Pardon me for being off topic, but i am glad KZ squashed that type of posting. All others, especially Ellie are couarageous and fair in posting. We all were kindly welcomed here and I find every one respectful and considerate of each others opinions.

nanshin wrote:Soprano,Ellie,Tamta and Ann-I didn't quote your posts for space. I want to thank you, too. I find the analysis you spoke of interesting, but found I was getting nuts trying to apply that method. I questioned someone if a post was a rumor, opinion or fact. I never did get an answer! Pardon me for being off topic, but i am glad KZ squashed that type of posting. All others, especially Ellie are couarageous and fair in posting. We all were kindly welcomed here and I find every one respectful and considerate of each others opinions.

Opinions. Yes, that's it. Well put. Proper posts on the proper blogs, and all is well. SA, when properly used, has its place. It does not take any time at all, as those trained to use in in interrogation well know, though it is better used on written statements. Many folks misunderstand the use of SA, confusing it with voice inflection and body language which it is not.

During the press conference it was stated that detectives are asking that the search warrants continue to be sealed. I believe they were scheduled to be unsealed at the end of the month. Police Lt. Pacheco said the documents contained information they did not want out there. His statements on this subject is betweenthe 16 and 18 minute mark at the following site:

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18575838/tpd-scheduled-briefings-will-end

nanaof4 wrote:During the press conference it was stated that detectives are asking that the search warrants continue to be sealed. I believe they were scheduled to be unsealed at the end of the month. Police Lt. Pacheco said the documents contained information they did not want out there. His statements on this subject is betweenthe 16 and 18 minute mark at the following site:

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18575838/tpd-scheduled-briefings-will-end

But I need that information !!!

Tamta:

We all think we need that info. However, I got the impression from the press conference that much more is going on in the background and much of the work is to exhaust all leads. I find it interesting to listen to what is being said (and not being said) in those press conferences.

nanaof4 wrote:Tamta:

We all think we need that info. However, I got the impression from the press conference that much more is going on in the background and much of the work is to exhaust all leads. I find it interesting to listen to what is being said (and not being said) in those press conferences.

ITA!!

And I listen in the same way as you.

PD to circle back with sex offenders for Isabel leads


Snipped:

Pacheco said police also plan to canvass 30 to 40 homes in neighborhoods near to where the girl lives.

"This area we're going back to is based on information from lead sheets," Pacheco said.


More@link

http://www.kpho.com/story/18576318/pd-to-circle-back-with-sex-offenders-for-isabel-leads

Police Recanvassing Area Near Isabel's Home

Snipped:

The family's two sons are in the custody of their mother. Police say the children's father voluntarily ceased contact with them after state Child Protective Services got involved in the investigation.

Was this said at the PC?
Is this confirmed by LE to be the status of their relationship with SC?


http://www.azpm.org/news/story/2012/5/21/1714-police-recanvassing-area-near-isabels-home/

Police canvassing the Celis neighborhood again


TPD said they will be back out canvassing the Celis' neighborhood, around Broadway and Craycroft, distributing questionnaires to about 120 houses.

"We want to make sure that we speak to everyone that resides in that home and some of those homes we haven't quite gone back and interviewed every single person in those homes," TPD Lt. Fabian Pacheco said.

http://www.kvoa.com/news/police-canvassing-the-celis-neighborhood-again/

Tamta wrote:Police Recanvassing Area Near Isabel's Home

Snipped:

The family's two sons are in the custody of their mother. Police say the children's father voluntarily ceased contact with them after state Child Protective Services got involved in the investigation.

Was this said at the PC?
Is this confirmed by LE to be the status of their relationship with SC?


http://www.azpm.org/news/story/2012/5/21/1714-police-recanvassing-area-near-isabels-home/

wasn't said at today's PC but it was confirmed last week by LE...it was voluntary agreement between Sergio and CPS.

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:Police Recanvassing Area Near Isabel's Home

Snipped:

The family's two sons are in the custody of their mother. Police say the children's father voluntarily ceased contact with them after state Child Protective Services got involved in the investigation.

Was this said at the PC?
Is this confirmed by LE to be the status of their relationship with SC?


http://www.azpm.org/news/story/2012/5/21/1714-police-recanvassing-area-near-isabels-home/

wasn't said at today's PC but it was confirmed last week by LE...it was voluntary agreement between Sergio and CPS.

Blah!

I misread !
I thought the article was saying that Serge cut off contact with LE!!!

Need more sleep!

Thanks.

Soprano1 wrote:I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this response. I have just about HAD it reading at one particular statement analysis blog - it blows my mind how the exact same words within the exact same type context from two different cases, will inevitably be skewed into meaning whatever supports the "analyst(s)" opinion of the person who spoke them. The very same words that "prove" that one person is telling the truth in one case, will be twisted, when spoken in response to similar questioning, by someone in another case, to "indicate deception."
...
Since RC seems to be a very reputable source for discussion and information, I hope its readers and contributors can all use the reason and logic that I observe in Ellie Tza's statements. An understanding of the way some will twist anything and everything a person says...no matter what they say, and an insistence on not being one of those people, does a forum good. Even as a newbie here (Hinky refugee), I quickly noticed the lengths to which this forum goes to keep from fueling rumors and blind speculation. Thank you, Ellie, for your excellent example.

Wow, I'm a little taken aback. What kind words, thank you.

Tamta wrote:

nanaof4 wrote:Tamta:

We all think we need that info. However, I got the impression from the press conference that much more is going on in the background and much of the work is to exhaust all leads. I find it interesting to listen to what is being said (and not being said) in those press conferences.

ITA!!

And I listen in the same way as you.

Yesterdays press conference had me more baffled then any other day on this case. Going back to talk to the sex offenders, keeping the search warrant information sealed, ending the scheduled briefings in the case....but still asking us to believe that the case isnt going cold? Sounds like they are back to square one, which one of the news reporters asked them point blank. I dont know about you all but I cant help but think they have nothing. I think they want us to believe they have something, but I really just dont believe they do. Going back a few press conferences ago it was even Pachecho who said, who ever did this did an aqeduate job of covering it up...so what then do they have. I too find it interesting what they say and dont, they are all over the place, and in the same breath cant give any details to compromise the case...so sad. Poor little Isa, so many days have gone by now, this case makes me so sad.

I'm really sick after hearing this. It sounds like they are at a stand still and were hoping to get a confession by removing the boys, but I'm not sure they have anything? Talking to registered sex offenders again? Hmmm

color77 wrote:

Tamta wrote:

nanaof4 wrote:Tamta:

We all think we need that info. However, I got the impression from the press conference that much more is going on in the background and much of the work is to exhaust all leads. I find it interesting to listen to what is being said (and not being said) in those press conferences.

ITA!!

And I listen in the same way as you.

Yesterdays press conference had me more baffled then any other day on this case. Going back to talk to the sex offenders, keeping the search warrant information sealed, ending the scheduled briefings in the case....but still asking us to believe that the case isnt going cold? Sounds like they are back to square one, which one of the news reporters asked them point blank. I dont know about you all but I cant help but think they have nothing. I think they want us to believe they have something, but I really just dont believe they do. Going back a few press conferences ago it was even Pachecho who said, who ever did this did an aqeduate job of covering it up...so what then do they have. I too find it interesting what they say and dont, they are all over the place, and in the same breath cant give any details to compromise the case...so sad. Poor little Isa, so many days have gone by now, this case makes me so sad.

Well in fairness to LE, it seems like standard procedure to return to canvassing and re-interviewing witnesses.

Perhaps new evidence or information has come to light that adds weight to a particular investigatory premise, and scanning for new witnesses is required.

I thought they said they were some neighbors that were not there when they went to interview. I can see them going back over the neighborhood.

snowbird wrote:I thought they said they were some neighbors that were not there when they went to interview. I can see them going back over the neighborhood.

I can see them going back over the neighborhood too, but its been 30 days now since this kid went missing. If they think they missed something so vital there then why didnt they stick around more in the beginning, track people down? The police also have practically begged the public to keep the tips coming, to encourage the Celis's to keep talking to the media in order to get them. The questionaire wants people to remember a month ago now if there were suspicious cars, delievery persons,partys, etc. That to me seems like a long time ago to recall stuff like that. To boot if you lived in the area you couldnt of missed it on the news, wouldnt someone say something then? Even if you didnt live locally I am in NY and its been all over...I just see them going all over the place, and I am afraid that means that they dont have anything of significance, thats why theres nothing to share, and no more scheduled conferences, I am not so sure I believe "this case is nowhere near cold". I am keeping the faith though, praying every day this baby girl is returned home!

color77 wrote:

snowbird wrote:I thought they said they were some neighbors that were not there when they went to interview. I can see them going back over the neighborhood.

I can see them going back over the neighborhood too, but its been 30 days now since this kid went missing. If they think they missed something so vital there then why didnt they stick around more in the beginning, track people down? The police also have practically begged the public to keep the tips coming, to encourage the Celis's to keep talking to the media in order to get them. The questionaire wants people to remember a month ago now if there were suspicious cars, delievery persons,partys, etc. That to me seems like a long time ago to recall stuff like that. To boot if you lived in the area you couldnt of missed it on the news, wouldnt someone say something then? Even if you didnt live locally I am in NY and its been all over...I just see them going all over the place, and I am afraid that means that they dont have anything of significance, thats why theres nothing to share, and no more scheduled conferences, I am not so sure I believe "this case is nowhere near cold". I am keeping the faith though, praying every day this baby girl is returned home!

Maybe they are hoping it will jog someones memory. When their back is against the walls they are hoping the public will come out with new leads.

Nancy Grace - Tonight, 5-22-12, at 8 & 10 pm EDT

http://nancygrace.blogs.cnn.com/
CNN - Nancy Grace Show 5/22/12

Missing Isa's Mom Defends Hubby

Mom of missing 6-year-old Isabel Celis defends her hubby after Child Protective Services bars him from seeing his sons! Will Isabel's mom continue to stand by her hubby?

snowbird wrote:I thought they said they were some neighbors that were not there when they went to interview. I can see them going back over the neighborhood.

Snowbird,

When I reviewed the 911 trans I saw that there were more individuals involved in that first response moment than I had originally thought.

IN thinking of those individuals, where they were, and further information gleaned from child interviews, the possibility of more "information" exponentially grows.

????????
Just wondering out loud.

That is interesting, I didn't know there were more individuals involved. Do you know who else was there?

Nancy Grace is asking if Sergio has lawyered up, LE said to ask Sergio. I don't know if it's true or not but he probably needs one.

I don't understand what's up with the family but it's apparent, imo, there are some kind of problems. At the vigil, NG is reporting Sergio was looking over the fense to see, he wasn't allowed to attend.

Body language on NG tonight, Constantine I think her name is, I ignore anything they say, I just don't put much validity in their opinions. For those that due, I respect that, but, they have no known facts in the invesigation, that's what I am interested in, not their opinions that could be wrong or right.

"Since Sergio is isolated from the family," Mark Klass said "Sergio should probably get an attorney." imo, I don't know what's up w/CPS but I don't think it is going to be resolved without an attorney, seems Becky wants him to be w/the family. imo.

I am having difficulty with the speculation in the media about the Celis family. It is my speculation that CPS may have been there on something innocuous. Maybe there was a incident at school or a absentee rate etc... or even that another person was living there and CPS was sent to discuss it with the family and found nothing of substance. Are they all backpedalling now because of Isa missing? maybe! but maybe there are other things discovered that are not a toxic as abuse of the children. Perhaps it was coaching because both Sergio SR and Sergio JR both use synonyms of abducted in the 911 call and that for me is a red flag. (but maybe they are a family that watched a lot of crime TV and that is why) I am certain that there are a great number of families out there where children do not go missing where there are drug and/or alcohol issues and children fend for themselves where CPS is not involved.

There are so few details that are actually facts that are being released that speculation is rampant! Sergio seeking an att'y could be perceived either way depending on the bias of the person reporting. It is truly a shame that Becky feels the need to be in protection mode of the boys and Sergio and the focus is off ISA!

justanopinion wrote:I am having difficulty with the speculation in the media about the Celis family. It is my speculation that CPS may have been there on something innocuous. Maybe there was a incident at school or a absentee rate etc... or even that another person was living there and CPS was sent to discuss it with the family and found nothing of substance. Are they all backpedalling now because of Isa missing? maybe! but maybe there are other things discovered that are not a toxic as abuse of the children. Perhaps it was coaching because both Sergio SR and Sergio JR both use synonyms of abducted in the 911 call and that for me is a red flag. (but maybe they are a family that watched a lot of crime TV and that is why) I am certain that there are a great number of families out there where children do not go missing where there are drug and/or alcohol issues and children fend for themselves where CPS is not involved.

There are so few details that are actually facts that are being released that speculation is rampant! Sergio seeking an att'y could be perceived either way depending on the bias of the person reporting. It is truly a shame that Becky feels the need to be in protection mode of the boys and Sergio and the focus is off ISA!

justanopinion, imo, Sergio needs an attorney, he has probably needed one for weeks regardless of the reason. IF HE DID pass the poly, an attorney could be in the MEDIA daily singing that BUT that has not happened. Because Isa is missing, LE came across information in their investigation that warranted CPS to be called, imo, it doesn't matter what the reason was, the decision has been made for a "no contact for Sergio with the boy's." An attorney could help Sergio navigate the system or defend him for whatever reason & possibily rejoin the family, something Becky wants, but imo, it can't be dismissed as something unimportant.

CPS didn't even take the children out of the home of Little Lisa or remove the children from the home of Justin when Alya disappeared, which imo, lends itself to question the severity of the accusations CPS has made. I can't speculate nor do I care as to the reason, Sergio didn't fight the removal of the boy's I asssume, it was in the best interest of the boy's & that's all that is important imo.

To date, Becky could still be in the news begging for Isabella's return, she is not as NG pointed out yet again last night. LE continues to ask Becky to do so, but she has chosen to make very few appearances to ask for Isa's return. why is that? Does she think volunteer's producing flyer's is going to bring more awareness to Isa's case?

imo, the focus could be on ISA if Becky decided to get back in the National media, she still chooes not to.

@ Art Tart~

IF Becky were to relentlessly stay in the spotlight of the National Media, the attention and focus would stay on Isabel and not her family, Sergio specifically.

The flyers are a good thing, but National Media coverage, that would help so much especially in addition to the flyers.

Calypso wrote:@ Art Tart~

IF Becky were to relentlessly stay in the spotlight of the National Media, the attention and focus would stay on Isabel and not her family, Sergio specifically.

The flyers are a good thing, but National Media coverage, that would help so much especially in addition to the flyers.

We would not what FBI activity is on this case, but when was the last Released LE search for Isa?

Calypso wrote:@ Art Tart~

IF Becky were to relentlessly stay in the spotlight of the National Media, the attention and focus would stay on Isabel and not her family, Sergio specifically.

The flyers are a good thing, but National Media coverage, that would help so much especially in addition to the flyers.

I agree with everyone who is stating mother needs to get in front of the media. I don't think she will because she will have to answer question about her husband. The last time she was in the media she talked more about how great the husband was and he loves the boy, more than she talk about Isabel. The statement that all question will be answer when Isabel come home, was very strange to me.
The father not fighting to see the boys is strange to me. I have seen in another case Kyron, that the sep mother did not fight to keep her little girl. She doesn't want to answer any question under oath because it may incriminate her. If I did nothing wrong I would fight tooth and nail for my child.

snowbird wrote:

Calypso wrote:@ Art Tart~

IF Becky were to relentlessly stay in the spotlight of the National Media, the attention and focus would stay on Isabel and not her family, Sergio specifically.

The flyers are a good thing, but National Media coverage, that would help so much especially in addition to the flyers.

I agree with everyone who is stating mother needs to get in front of the media. I don't think she will because she will have to answer question about her husband. The last time she was in the media she talked more about how great the husband was and he loves the boy, more than she talk about Isabel. The statement that all question will be answer when Isabel come home, was very strange to me.
The father not fighting to see the boys is strange to me. I have seen in another case Kyron, that the sep mother did not fight to keep her little girl. She doesn't want to answer any question under oath because it may incriminate her. If I did nothing wrong I would fight tooth and nail for my child.

This is interesting to me.

The agreement was voluntary and it did not have to be.

If it had been court ordered, he could have gotten counsel and had it overturned or at leas put up a good argument for doing so.

Action to seek the dismissal of the order in turn would have led to increased disclosure as to the nature of the CPS contact, whether or not that would have been sealed who knows.

Do these shed any light on to what possibly could be the reason for the CPS involvement, at least as of April?

snowbird wrote:

Calypso wrote:@ Art Tart~

IF Becky were to relentlessly stay in the spotlight of the National Media, the attention and focus would stay on Isabel and not her family, Sergio specifically.

The flyers are a good thing, but National Media coverage, that would help so much especially in addition to the flyers.

I agree with everyone who is stating mother needs to get in front of the media. I don't think she will because she will have to answer question about her husband. The last time she was in the media she talked more about how great the husband was and he loves the boy, more than she talk about Isabel. The statement that all question will be answer when Isabel come home, was very strange to me.
The father not fighting to see the boys is strange to me. I have seen in another case Kyron, that the sep mother did not fight to keep her little girl. She doesn't want to answer any question under oath because it may incriminate her. If I did nothing wrong I would fight tooth and nail for my child.

Look, even if there were issues with the husband/father, I would still be out there pleading for my daughter.

Let the reporters fire off questions about the husband, her focus should be her daugther and her daughter only. She can tell them that too- IF Sergio has issues, he has to work them out, I am not here to answer for him, I am here to plead for my daughter~ and keep repeating that until they get the message of why she is there.

Public speaking is still a tough thing for some people to do.