Isabel Celis -- Missing 4/20/12

I've been behind on this thread, in my attempt to keep up with the Sierra Lamar thread. You people are just too darned fast. :)

The footprints are very interesting.
And blood?

And stained items in the car? That's just weird. Even IF someone in the house had something to do with this crime, and even IF they used the items in the car to dispose of evidence, why would they then leave those items in the car? That's, at the very least, confusing and inconsistent.

And what in the world is a "positive luminol reason"?

Any more significant/interesting tidbits from the docs mentioned??

Ellie Tza wrote:I've been behind on this thread, in my attempt to keep up with the Sierra Lamar thread. You people are just too darned fast. :)

The footprints are very interesting.
And blood?

And stained items in the car? That's just weird. Even IF someone in the house had something to do with this crime, and even IF they used the items in the car to dispose of evidence, why would they then leave those items in the car? That's, at the very least, confusing and inconsistent.

And what in the world is a "positive luminol reason"?

Any more significant/interesting tidbits from the docs mentioned??

I think that is a transcriber typo -- I see that often with the NG Transcripts. I think the word should be (the one most commonly associated with the Luminol process is "resin" or "residue"

Honeysage wrote:http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18621086/550-pages-released-in-celis-case
550+ pages reveal details in extensive Celis investigation

One detective wrote, "I used a forensic light source to search the middle east bedroom of the residence for any bodily fluids." The official also photographed footprints in the alleyway south of the Celis home and "several shoe impressions on top of an electrical box located directly behind the residence."

UPDATE:
-overall views of the middle east bedroom including views of apparent blood on the floor."
-Taken from a car at the residence was a white hat and a vinyl shower curtain. The items had "dark red-brown or brown stains."
-One detective reported a positive Luminol reason on the "driver's seat of the Toyota Corolla


The full PDF of the documents will be available by Friday afternoon.

Just trying to think this through. Typically a stranger abductor does not kill the child within the home - usually there is a followup act done elsewhere at which point the victim is killed, almost ritualistically as part of the lewd act, and then the body is disposed of rather quickly. It doesn't make sense to me that there is blood in the house/bedroom. If Isa struggled with a stranger and was injured and bled in the process, surely Sergio would have heard that (?)

One detective reported a positive Luminol reason on the "driver's seat of the Toyota Corolla," that was at the residence. Luminol is used in forensic investigations to identify traces of blood.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18621086/550-pages-released-in-celis-case

Wasn't the Corolla the car that was initially reported as undriveable? And what does that mean? Not registered/current on taxes? Or disabled motor?

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18621086/550-pages-released-in-celis-case
550+ pages reveal details in extensive Celis investigation

One detective wrote, "I used a forensic light source to search the middle east bedroom of the residence for any bodily fluids." The official also photographed footprints in the alleyway south of the Celis home and "several shoe impressions on top of an electrical box located directly behind the residence."

UPDATE:
-overall views of the middle east bedroom including views of apparent blood on the floor."
-Taken from a car at the residence was a white hat and a vinyl shower curtain. The items had "dark red-brown or brown stains."
-One detective reported a positive Luminol reason on the "driver's seat of the Toyota Corolla


The full PDF of the documents will be available by Friday afternoon.

Just trying to think this through. Typically a stranger abductor does not kill the child within the home - usually there is a followup act done elsewhere at which point the victim is killed, almost ritualistically as part of the lewd act, and then the body is disposed of rather quickly. It doesn't make sense to me that there is blood in the house/bedroom. If Isa struggled with a stranger and was injured and bled in the process, surely Sergio would have heard that (?)

they haven't told us whose blood-or how much, or what those stains actually were...and after what happened in Lamar case with them having suspect all along i don't what to think with these doc releases...sure isn't helping the family's reputation.

Honeysage wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18621086/550-pages-released-in-celis-case
550+ pages reveal details in extensive Celis investigation

One detective wrote, "I used a forensic light source to search the middle east bedroom of the residence for any bodily fluids." The official also photographed footprints in the alleyway south of the Celis home and "several shoe impressions on top of an electrical box located directly behind the residence."

UPDATE:
-overall views of the middle east bedroom including views of apparent blood on the floor."
-Taken from a car at the residence was a white hat and a vinyl shower curtain. The items had "dark red-brown or brown stains."
-One detective reported a positive Luminol reason on the "driver's seat of the Toyota Corolla


The full PDF of the documents will be available by Friday afternoon.

Just trying to think this through. Typically a stranger abductor does not kill the child within the home - usually there is a followup act done elsewhere at which point the victim is killed, almost ritualistically as part of the lewd act, and then the body is disposed of rather quickly. It doesn't make sense to me that there is blood in the house/bedroom. If Isa struggled with a stranger and was injured and bled in the process, surely Sergio would have heard that (?)

they haven't told us whose blood-or how much, or what those stains actually were...and after what happened in Lamar case with them having suspect all along i don't what to think with these doc releases...sure isn't helping the family's reputation.

I usually don't re-post comments from outside the blog -- but this was a comment in response to the 550 page doc release today:

"So this is a move by the PD to show they did some work or what?"

I spit my coffee out. It does seem that way -- they reportedly have spent over $1million now and are now circling back with registered offenders (which to me seems like a square#1 maneurver). I hope I'm wrong.

Stolat, I hope you are wrong too, about square 1. Like yesterday we heard LE in FL are "putting fresh eyes" on the Michelle Parker case ??

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18621086/550-pages-released-in-celis-case
550+ pages reveal details in extensive Celis investigation

One detective wrote, "I used a forensic light source to search the middle east bedroom of the residence for any bodily fluids." The official also photographed footprints in the alleyway south of the Celis home and "several shoe impressions on top of an electrical box located directly behind the residence."

UPDATE:
-overall views of the middle east bedroom including views of apparent blood on the floor."
-Taken from a car at the residence was a white hat and a vinyl shower curtain. The items had "dark red-brown or brown stains."
-One detective reported a positive Luminol reason on the "driver's seat of the Toyota Corolla


The full PDF of the documents will be available by Friday afternoon.

Just trying to think this through. Typically a stranger abductor does not kill the child within the home - usually there is a followup act done elsewhere at which point the victim is killed, almost ritualistically as part of the lewd act, and then the body is disposed of rather quickly. It doesn't make sense to me that there is blood in the house/bedroom. If Isa struggled with a stranger and was injured and bled in the process, surely Sergio would have heard that (?)

they haven't told us whose blood-or how much, or what those stains actually were...and after what happened in Lamar case with them having suspect all along i don't what to think with these doc releases...sure isn't helping the family's reputation.

I usually don't re-post comments from outside the blog -- but this was a comment in response to the 550 page doc release today:

"So this is a move by the PD to show they did some work or what?"

I spit my coffee out. It does seem that way -- they reportedly have spent over $1million now and are now circling back with registered offenders (which to me seems like a square#1 maneurver). I hope I'm wrong.

HELLO!!!

Welcome to the adversarial trial system where the exclusive collectors and protectors of evidence are the same group of individuals!

It's really easy getting answers and people to be accountable in these circumstances. NOT.

You can take that however you like.

"Who's" blood is on the shower curtain.

Hello?! A shower curtain!!

Red flag.

BTW...could there have been "finger prints" on that shower curtain?

Puzzler wrote:"Who's" blood is on the shower curtain.

Hello?! A shower curtain!!

Red flag.

BTW...could there have been "finger prints" on that shower curtain?

Does not look good for the 'stranger'.

Tamta wrote:

Puzzler wrote:"Who's" blood is on the shower curtain.

Hello?! A shower curtain!!

Red flag.

BTW...could there have been "finger prints" on that shower curtain?

Does not look good for the 'stranger'.

wish we knew if there was one missing from the bathrooms. i use old shower curtain liners for drop cloths when i paint or even as tarps to cover things outside (rains a lot where i live) BUT i don't store them in my car.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18621086/550-pages-released-in-celis-case
550+ pages reveal details in extensive Celis investigation

Taken from a car at the residence was a white hat and a vinyl shower curtain. The items had "dark red-brown or brown stains." Tests were not performed on scene of the shower curtain because "it was decided to keep the item close to its original condition and allow crime lab personnel to screen the shower curtain for possible evidence if deemed necessary."
______________________________________

why wouldn't they just impound the entire car?

http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/153931355.html
Police reports shed new light on Celis investigation

Sergio tells police he fell asleep on the couch in the family room until 5 a.m. That's when he woke up to join Rebecca in bed the morning Isabel disappeared. He tells police the window was closed the last time he saw Isabel.
___________________________

i wonder what time that was? because according to the 911 call it was the son who noticed the window open and screen on the ground, not Sergio even though he supposedly was the one to find her missing-wouldn't it be obvious that a window was open? i mean, it's a big window and supposedly the curtains/binds were pushed aside.

Tamta wrote:New reports detail Tucson police's intense search for Isabel Celis

Tucson police conducted an intensive search — both in the number of people questioned and areas checked — in the hours and days following the disappearance of Isabel Celis, newly released reports show.

Tucson police on Thursday made public more than 500 pages of reports filed by officers who were involved in the search for 6-year-old Isabel, who was reported missing from her midtown home April 21.

The investigation has cost Tucson police more than $1 million and involved hundreds of officers.

Most of the police reports were similar in detail, briefly spelling out each officer’s involvement in the case. Most of the reports were from officers who conducted searches, canvassed neighborhoods or followed up on tips reported by the community.

More at LInk

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/new-reports-detail-tucson-police-s-instense-search-for-isabel/article_b5e5f172-a612-11e1-84ee-001a4bcf887a.html

Why is this being released before an arrest, or did I miss something. I have not had time to caught up.

Stolat wrote:One detective reported a positive Luminol reason on the "driver's seat of the Toyota Corolla," that was at the residence. Luminol is used in forensic investigations to identify traces of blood.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18621086/550-pages-released-in-celis-case

Wasn't the Corolla the car that was initially reported as undriveable? And what does that mean? Not registered/current on taxes? Or disabled motor?

Stolat, wasn't that the car that the seat cushions were removed from? Makes sense if they got a Lumninol hit on the cushions they mightr indeed cut them out.

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Puzzler wrote:"Who's" blood is on the shower curtain.

Hello?! A shower curtain!!

Red flag.

BTW...could there have been "finger prints" on that shower curtain?

Does not look good for the 'stranger'.

wish we knew if there was one missing from the bathrooms. i use old shower curtain liners for drop cloths when i paint or even as tarps to cover things outside (rains a lot where i live) BUT i don't store them in my car.

I can't find the original local news link that said that one vehicle at the residence was not driveable - but I know that was stated in the news. I believe strongly it was the Corolla pictured to the side of the house. That would be the car that the white hat and shower curtain were recovered. First of all - the family must explain why they have a shower curtain in a non-driving car and who put it there. Obviously a stranger could not put it there unless they make a habit of leaving the car unlocked. If the shower curtain turns out to contain blood then I'd say they have some key evidence because something like that would not be stashed in the family vehicle by a stranger.

art tart wrote:

Stolat wrote:One detective reported a positive Luminol reason on the "driver's seat of the Toyota Corolla," that was at the residence. Luminol is used in forensic investigations to identify traces of blood.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18621086/550-pages-released-in-celis-case

Wasn't the Corolla the car that was initially reported as undriveable? And what does that mean? Not registered/current on taxes? Or disabled motor?

Stolat, wasn't that the car that the seat cushions were removed from? Makes sense if they got a Lumninol hit on the cushions they mightr indeed cut them out.

I'd have to go back and review the video from a few weeks ago - -I don't think that was something specified in print (as to specifically which car) I could be wrong. But yes, I too read that "pillows" or fabric cushions were removed from the car. I now think "pillows" was someone's misinterpretation of "cusions". And now that would make sense, whereas before I thought it odd that there were pillows in their car.

I always thought that something happened to this child at home and it was covered up. My thinking was dad covered it up.

Does any one know why this is being released now before an arrest?

Honeysage wrote:http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/153931355.html
Police reports shed new light on Celis investigation

Sergio tells police he fell asleep on the couch in the family room until 5 a.m. That's when he woke up to join Rebecca in bed the morning Isabel disappeared. He tells police the window was closed the last time he saw Isabel.
___________________________

i wonder what time that was? because according to the 911 call it was the son who noticed the window open and screen on the ground, not Sergio even though he supposedly was the one to find her missing-wouldn't it be obvious that a window was open? i mean, it's a big window and supposedly the curtains/binds were pushed aside.

So now he has placed himself "awake" at 5AM - only 1.5 hrs prior to the dogs supposedly barking and mens voices heard. Didn't he originally word his testimony to make it sound like he was asleep in that room the ENTIRE time up to the point Isa went missing? I'll have to pull the docs again. I specifically recall his response to make it sound like he's amazed she was taken considering he slept in the room right next to her and didn't hear a thing. That statement was made in specific context to the den he slept in. But now he makes the statement that he was NOT in that room when she disappeared because he claims the window was still closed at the point where he woke up and went back to the master suite.

We now have definitive answer on "Who saw Isa last?" - - Sergio. Because according to him the window was closed (assuming anything he has to say is factual).

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Puzzler wrote:"Who's" blood is on the shower curtain.

Hello?! A shower curtain!!

Red flag.

BTW...could there have been "finger prints" on that shower curtain?

Does not look good for the 'stranger'.

wish we knew if there was one missing from the bathrooms. i use old shower curtain liners for drop cloths when i paint or even as tarps to cover things outside (rains a lot where i live) BUT i don't store them in my car.

I can't find the original local news link that said that one vehicle at the residence was not driveable - but I know that was stated in the news. I believe strongly it was the Corolla pictured to the side of the house. That would be the car that the white hat and shower curtain were recovered. First of all - the family must explain why they have a shower curtain in a non-driving car and who put it there. Obviously a stranger could not put it there unless they make a habit of leaving the car unlocked. If the shower curtain turns out to contain blood then I'd say they have some key evidence because something like that would not be stashed in the family vehicle by a stranger.

So the 'shower curtain':

-is this human blood or animal blood

-Isabel's blood

-And is it not completely stupid to have left a piece if blood evidence on site?

Sergio strikes me as a bit smoother than that.

snowbird wrote:I always thought that something happened to this child at home and it was covered up. My thinking was dad covered it up.

Does any one know why this is being released now before an arrest?

Maybe it's political -- maybe they're catching major flack about having spent $1million taxpayers money and nothing to show for it.

snowbird wrote:I always thought that something happened to this child at home and it was covered up. My thinking was dad covered it up.

Does any one know why this is being released now before an arrest?

BBM
Because they are watching the perp and now that they have released some info they are waiting for him/her to go somewhere/do something? I really have no idea.

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/153931355.html
Police reports shed new light on Celis investigation

Sergio tells police he fell asleep on the couch in the family room until 5 a.m. That's when he woke up to join Rebecca in bed the morning Isabel disappeared. He tells police the window was closed the last time he saw Isabel.
___________________________

i wonder what time that was? because according to the 911 call it was the son who noticed the window open and screen on the ground, not Sergio even though he supposedly was the one to find her missing-wouldn't it be obvious that a window was open? i mean, it's a big window and supposedly the curtains/binds were pushed aside.

So now he has placed himself "awake" at 5AM - only 1.5 hrs prior to the dogs supposedly barking and mens voices heard. Didn't he originally word his testimony to make it sound like he was asleep in that room the ENTIRE time up to the point Isa went missing? I'll have to pull the docs again. I specifically recall his response to make it sound like he's amazed she was taken considering he slept in the room right next to her and didn't hear a thing. That statement was made in specific context to the den he slept in. But now he makes the statement that he was NOT in that room when she disappeared because he claims the window was still closed at the point where he woke up and went back to the master suite.

We now have definitive answer on "Who saw Isa last?" - - Sergio. Because according to him the window was closed (assuming anything he has to say is factual).

Actually he never spoke about sleeping there the entire night, only being on the couch around midnight watching the game.

We have heard almost nothing from the family on the last person to see Isabel at night to daylight or Becky leaves for work timeline.

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Puzzler wrote:"Who's" blood is on the shower curtain.

Hello?! A shower curtain!!

Red flag.

BTW...could there have been "finger prints" on that shower curtain?

Does not look good for the 'stranger'.

wish we knew if there was one missing from the bathrooms. i use old shower curtain liners for drop cloths when i paint or even as tarps to cover things outside (rains a lot where i live) BUT i don't store them in my car.

I can't find the original local news link that said that one vehicle at the residence was not driveable - but I know that was stated in the news. I believe strongly it was the Corolla pictured to the side of the house. That would be the car that the white hat and shower curtain were recovered. First of all - the family must explain why they have a shower curtain in a non-driving car and who put it there. Obviously a stranger could not put it there unless they make a habit of leaving the car unlocked. If the shower curtain turns out to contain blood then I'd say they have some key evidence because something like that would not be stashed in the family vehicle by a stranger.

So the 'shower curtain':

-is this human blood or animal blood

-Isabel's blood

-And is it not completely stupid to have left a piece if blood evidence on site?

Sergio strikes me as a bit smoother than that.

So maybe this is an indication that the suspect is close enough to the family to know the home layout and perhaps may even have keys to the family spare car, but not concerned about leaving behind damning evidence that might actually serve as a decoy --- ie., put the focus on the parents and not on the other party who may actually be responsible.

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/153931355.html
Police reports shed new light on Celis investigation

Sergio tells police he fell asleep on the couch in the family room until 5 a.m. That's when he woke up to join Rebecca in bed the morning Isabel disappeared. He tells police the window was closed the last time he saw Isabel.
___________________________

i wonder what time that was? because according to the 911 call it was the son who noticed the window open and screen on the ground, not Sergio even though he supposedly was the one to find her missing-wouldn't it be obvious that a window was open? i mean, it's a big window and supposedly the curtains/binds were pushed aside.

So now he has placed himself "awake" at 5AM - only 1.5 hrs prior to the dogs supposedly barking and mens voices heard. Didn't he originally word his testimony to make it sound like he was asleep in that room the ENTIRE time up to the point Isa went missing? I'll have to pull the docs again. I specifically recall his response to make it sound like he's amazed she was taken considering he slept in the room right next to her and didn't hear a thing. That statement was made in specific context to the den he slept in. But now he makes the statement that he was NOT in that room when she disappeared because he claims the window was still closed at the point where he woke up and went back to the master suite.

We now have definitive answer on "Who saw Isa last?" - - Sergio. Because according to him the window was closed (assuming anything he has to say is factual).

Actually he never spoke about sleeping there the entire night, only being on the couch around midnight watching the game.

We have heard almost nothing from the family on the last person to see Isabel at night to daylight or Becky leaves for work timeline.

This is what I'm referring to - from Nancy Grace:

SERGIO CELIS: No. We got home late from my son`s baseball game, about 10:30 last night. Everyone took their showers and they all went to bed. I even was in the living room watching the Diamondbacks game at midnight. I fell asleep. And I never heard anything weird. ----So I was, like, just on the other side of the wall from her.

----
I think it is no mistake that we are supposed to infer, based on the immediate juxtaposition of *where* he fell asleep and *whether* he heard anything, that he was insinuating he was in that spot the whole time. And notice the LAST sentence....

"So I was, like, just on the other side of the wall from her..." As in -- I was right there next to her and I never heard her being taken

I don't know how else we are supposed to infer that context - otherwise he would have said, So I was like just down the hall in my bedroom

The thing is -- he has highlighted a huge inconsistency in his statement -- he can't state both scenarios -- he can't state that he was "just on the other side of the wall" because he has *already* said that at 5AM when he changed sleeping locations that her window was closed - therefore implicating that she had not yet been taken at that time -- and yet he very clearly states "I was just on the other side of the wall from her" -- he doesn't say -- I was *in my bedroom* when she was taken -- because that's where he is now placing himself at the time she was taken -- or else the window would be reported as open not closed. Ane yet the context he provides of *when* he would have expected to hear something was *when* she was taken and immediately within that same context he provides the evidence that he was "just on the other side of the wall from her" NO mention of his bedroom AT ALL.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1205/15/ng.01.html

I can't see a strange or even a family member harming this child while in the house, if he was going to take her. I would not think there would be time for that to happen.

Thanks to everyone about why they would release the evidence now.

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Chickenbutt wrote:Boy during all those searches by LE, I bet the normal, everyday criminals were very nervous.

i wonder what statistics looked like for those weeks.

Now THAT piqued my interest!! I DO wonder what the crime stats look like when heightened police activity scours the area like that. There must be a strong correlation between decreased activity (for that related type of crime) and heightened police scrutiny & investigation.

For one thing, we have learned that as a result of interviewing RSO's they already found several in violation of their registration.

That is GREAT NEWS!!!

Usually you hear about them falling through the cracks!

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/intensity-of-search-for-isabel-revealed/article_91fee6b2-df37-5c40-bc2a-20e15fe69299.html

Intensity of search for Isabel revealed

- Also, all the bedding from the Celis home was removed, police said. Writings on Isabel's closet-door frame and walls were photographed.

-The doctors said Sergio Celis doesn't regularly socialize with any other employees outside of work. He never borrowed money from them, the doctors told police.

-He's been employed at the office as a surgical assistant since 2008, the doctors told police.

-She also reported that around 8 a.m., she encountered one of Isabel's brothers walking toward an LA Fitness on Wilmot Road. She said the boy told her that he was looking for his missing sister and that he was crying.
______________________

either everyone's time is off or a whole lot of stuff happened at 8:00 that morning. the Celis home to LA Fitness is 1.14 miles according to mapquest...now-if you are searching for someone you are not going to run right? you are going to take your time walking and calling out her name and checking places along the way. so how did he get there by 8am if they only discovered her missing at 8am????

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/153931355.html
Police reports shed new light on Celis investigation

Sergio tells police he fell asleep on the couch in the family room until 5 a.m. That's when he woke up to join Rebecca in bed the morning Isabel disappeared. He tells police the window was closed the last time he saw Isabel.
___________________________

i wonder what time that was? because according to the 911 call it was the son who noticed the window open and screen on the ground, not Sergio even though he supposedly was the one to find her missing-wouldn't it be obvious that a window was open? i mean, it's a big window and supposedly the curtains/binds were pushed aside.

So now he has placed himself "awake" at 5AM - only 1.5 hrs prior to the dogs supposedly barking and mens voices heard. Didn't he originally word his testimony to make it sound like he was asleep in that room the ENTIRE time up to the point Isa went missing? I'll have to pull the docs again. I specifically recall his response to make it sound like he's amazed she was taken considering he slept in the room right next to her and didn't hear a thing. That statement was made in specific context to the den he slept in. But now he makes the statement that he was NOT in that room when she disappeared because he claims the window was still closed at the point where he woke up and went back to the master suite.

We now have definitive answer on "Who saw Isa last?" - - Sergio. Because according to him the window was closed (assuming anything he has to say is factual).

Actually he never spoke about sleeping there the entire night, only being on the couch around midnight watching the game.

We have heard almost nothing from the family on the last person to see Isabel at night to daylight or Becky leaves for work timeline.

This is what I'm referring to - from Nancy Grace:

SERGIO CELIS: No. We got home late from my son`s baseball game, about 10:30 last night. Everyone took their showers and they all went to bed. I even was in the living room watching the Diamondbacks game at midnight. I fell asleep. And I never heard anything weird. ----So I was, like, just on the other side of the wall from her.

----
I think it is no mistake that we are supposed to infer, based on the immediate juxtaposition of *where* he fell asleep and *whether* he heard anything, that he was insinuating he was in that spot the whole time. And notice the LAST sentence....

"So I was, like, just on the other side of the wall from her..." As in -- I was right there next to her and I never heard her being taken

I don't know how else we are supposed to infer that context - otherwise he would have said, So I was like just down the hall in my bedroom

The thing is -- he has highlighted a huge inconsistency in his statement -- he can't state both scenarios -- he can't state that he was "just on the other side of the wall" because he has *already* said that at 5AM when he changed sleeping locations that her window was closed - therefore implicating that she had not yet been taken at that time -- and yet he very clearly states "I was just on the other side of the wall from her" -- he doesn't say -- I was *in my bedroom* when she was taken -- because that's where he is now placing himself at the time she was taken -- or else the window would be reported as open not closed.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1205/15/ng.01.html

I see what you are saying I just always inferred that his intention was to imPly that the abduction occurred at night or closer to the bed time hour and not the morning.

Honeysage wrote:http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/intensity-of-search-for-isabel-revealed/article_91fee6b2-df37-5c40-bc2a-20e15fe69299.html

Intensity of search for Isabel revealed

- Also, all the bedding from the Celis home was removed, police said. Writings on Isabel's closet-door frame and walls were photographed.

-The doctors said Sergio Celis doesn't regularly socialize with any other employees outside of work. He never borrowed money from them, the doctors told police.

-He's been employed at the office as a surgical assistant since 2008, the doctors told police.

-She also reported that around 8 a.m., she encountered one of Isabel's brothers walking toward an LA Fitness on Wilmot Road. She said the boy told her that he was looking for his missing sister and that he was crying.
______________________

either everyone's time is off or a whole lot of stuff happened at 8:00 that morning. the Celis home to LA Fitness is 1.14 miles according to mapquest...now-if you are searching for someone you are not going to run right? you are going to take your time walking and calling out her name and checking places along the way. so how did he get there by 8am if they only discovered her missing at 8am????

A whole lot of stuff at 8am.

Sergio was alone at the house without his kids.

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/153931355.html
Police reports shed new light on Celis investigation

Sergio tells police he fell asleep on the couch in the family room until 5 a.m. That's when he woke up to join Rebecca in bed the morning Isabel disappeared. He tells police the window was closed the last time he saw Isabel.
___________________________

i wonder what time that was? because according to the 911 call it was the son who noticed the window open and screen on the ground, not Sergio even though he supposedly was the one to find her missing-wouldn't it be obvious that a window was open? i mean, it's a big window and supposedly the curtains/binds were pushed aside.

So now he has placed himself "awake" at 5AM - only 1.5 hrs prior to the dogs supposedly barking and mens voices heard. Didn't he originally word his testimony to make it sound like he was asleep in that room the ENTIRE time up to the point Isa went missing? I'll have to pull the docs again. I specifically recall his response to make it sound like he's amazed she was taken considering he slept in the room right next to her and didn't hear a thing. That statement was made in specific context to the den he slept in. But now he makes the statement that he was NOT in that room when she disappeared because he claims the window was still closed at the point where he woke up and went back to the master suite.

We now have definitive answer on "Who saw Isa last?" - - Sergio. Because according to him the window was closed (assuming anything he has to say is factual).

Actually he never spoke about sleeping there the entire night, only being on the couch around midnight watching the game.

We have heard almost nothing from the family on the last person to see Isabel at night to daylight or Becky leaves for work timeline.

This is what I'm referring to - from Nancy Grace:

SERGIO CELIS: No. We got home late from my son`s baseball game, about 10:30 last night. Everyone took their showers and they all went to bed. I even was in the living room watching the Diamondbacks game at midnight. I fell asleep. And I never heard anything weird. ----So I was, like, just on the other side of the wall from her.

----
I think it is no mistake that we are supposed to infer, based on the immediate juxtaposition of *where* he fell asleep and *whether* he heard anything, that he was insinuating he was in that spot the whole time. And notice the LAST sentence....

"So I was, like, just on the other side of the wall from her..." As in -- I was right there next to her and I never heard her being taken

I don't know how else we are supposed to infer that context - otherwise he would have said, So I was like just down the hall in my bedroom

The thing is -- he has highlighted a huge inconsistency in his statement -- he can't state both scenarios -- he can't state that he was "just on the other side of the wall" because he has *already* said that at 5AM when he changed sleeping locations that her window was closed - therefore implicating that she had not yet been taken at that time -- and yet he very clearly states "I was just on the other side of the wall from her" -- he doesn't say -- I was *in my bedroom* when she was taken -- because that's where he is now placing himself at the time she was taken -- or else the window would be reported as open not closed. Ane yet the context he provides of *when* he would have expected to hear something was *when* she was taken and immediately within that same context he provides the evidence that he was "just on the other side of the wall from her" NO mention of his bedroom AT ALL.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1205/15/ng.01.html

You're right.

He also states the window was closed, which suggests he "looked in her room" at least momentarily, his eyes would have had to acclimate to the light vs dark, unless she slept with a light on, (then someone could look in the window from the street?), how else would he know the window was "closed"?

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/153931355.html
Police reports shed new light on Celis investigation

Sergio tells police he fell asleep on the couch in the family room until 5 a.m. That's when he woke up to join Rebecca in bed the morning Isabel disappeared. He tells police the window was closed the last time he saw Isabel.
___________________________

i wonder what time that was? because according to the 911 call it was the son who noticed the window open and screen on the ground, not Sergio even though he supposedly was the one to find her missing-wouldn't it be obvious that a window was open? i mean, it's a big window and supposedly the curtains/binds were pushed aside.

So now he has placed himself "awake" at 5AM - only 1.5 hrs prior to the dogs supposedly barking and mens voices heard. Didn't he originally word his testimony to make it sound like he was asleep in that room the ENTIRE time up to the point Isa went missing? I'll have to pull the docs again. I specifically recall his response to make it sound like he's amazed she was taken considering he slept in the room right next to her and didn't hear a thing. That statement was made in specific context to the den he slept in. But now he makes the statement that he was NOT in that room when she disappeared because he claims the window was still closed at the point where he woke up and went back to the master suite.

We now have definitive answer on "Who saw Isa last?" - - Sergio. Because according to him the window was closed (assuming anything he has to say is factual).

Actually he never spoke about sleeping there the entire night, only being on the couch around midnight watching the game.

We have heard almost nothing from the family on the last person to see Isabel at night to daylight or Becky leaves for work timeline.

This is what I'm referring to - from Nancy Grace:

SERGIO CELIS: No. We got home late from my son`s baseball game, about 10:30 last night. Everyone took their showers and they all went to bed. I even was in the living room watching the Diamondbacks game at midnight. I fell asleep. And I never heard anything weird. ----So I was, like, just on the other side of the wall from her.

----
I think it is no mistake that we are supposed to infer, based on the immediate juxtaposition of *where* he fell asleep and *whether* he heard anything, that he was insinuating he was in that spot the whole time. And notice the LAST sentence....

"So I was, like, just on the other side of the wall from her..." As in -- I was right there next to her and I never heard her being taken

I don't know how else we are supposed to infer that context - otherwise he would have said, So I was like just down the hall in my bedroom

The thing is -- he has highlighted a huge inconsistency in his statement -- he can't state both scenarios -- he can't state that he was "just on the other side of the wall" because he has *already* said that at 5AM when he changed sleeping locations that her window was closed - therefore implicating that she had not yet been taken at that time -- and yet he very clearly states "I was just on the other side of the wall from her" -- he doesn't say -- I was *in my bedroom* when she was taken -- because that's where he is now placing himself at the time she was taken -- or else the window would be reported as open not closed.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1205/15/ng.01.html

I see what you are saying I just always inferred that his intention was to imPly that the abduction occurred at night or closer to the bed time hour and not the morning.

Well, now he is *clearly* stating it did not occur closer to the bedtime hour, because now he is indicating she was not yet taken at 5am when he "allegedly" saw the window still closed.

And this does answer "who last saw Isa", whether he intended to do that or not -- we know Becky wasn't up at that time because Sergio clearly state that he went to "join Rebecca in bed" -- he doesn't say he went to their bed where Rebecca was already up and getting ready for work. So Rebecca was still sleeping at 5am when he moved locations (allegedly, although I don't buy it). Ding Ding Ding!!!! That means Sergio was the LAST person to (claim) see Isabel. Because he states that he also checked in on her at that time and saw the window close.

honestly I think it's all a line of crap and I think that Sergio was the *last* to see Isa alright -- but I'm just running with the facts for now.

About everybodies time being off.....since I retired, I do not wear a watch. Nor am I connected at the hip to my cell phone. My best guess is that people are "guesstimating" the time that something happened. The only time that can be confirmed, is the call to 911. All the other witnesses probably did not look at their watches when they encountered a little boy, or when a boy comes into the store asking if they saw Isa. I think it is probably a "best guess" that they came up with when interviewed by LE later.

http://nancygrace.blogs.cnn.com/
HLN/CNN Nancy Grace Show 5-25-12

Missing Isabel: blood found?

"Apparent blood" reportedly found in missing 6-yr-old Isabel Celis' bedroom, as well as mystery footprints on a utility box near the wall surrounding the home.

Tonight at 8 & 10 pm EDT

Chickenbutt wrote:About everybodies time being off.....since I retired, I do not wear a watch. Nor am I connected at the hip to my cell phone. My best guess is that people are "guesstimating" the time that something happened. The only time that can be confirmed, is the call to 911. All the other witnesses probably did not look at their watches when they encountered a little boy, or when a boy comes into the store asking if they saw Isa. I think it is probably a "best guess" that they came up with when interviewed by LE later.

Sergio places both boys out of house during HIS 911 call:

- "over the property wall"

-"in garage waiting for mother"

- neighbor places younger son at house around 8am mark close to Justins visit and later LE's visit.

Sergio Jr places himself out if house with his 911 call.

@ Stolat

I think he was the last one to see her.

Sergio also changed his tune about the window being the sure point of entry.

He just wasn't sure anymore .

You know what I mean?

There may be two sensitive times though for this crime, that is if it happened in the home and someone there was involved:

-when 'it' happened
-when 'it' was covered up

I am not a detail person.....lol
What time did the Party Store clerk say the brother came in?
Someone said she saw one of the brothers near LA Fitness around 8:00. Leaving out Sergio and all of his times, my suspicion is that all the unbiased witnesses may have their times off by several minutes at best.

Tamta wrote:@ Stolat

Sergio also changed his tune about the window being the sure point of entry.

He just wasn't sure anymore .

You know what I mean?

if i woke up to find a screen knocked out and a window open i would be most definite that was the point of entry and/or exit because why else would it be like that? i don't understand his flip-flopping on that issue-regardless of what police tell you. if he said her window was last closed and then wakes up to find it open then 1+1 right? so if he didn't stage it who did-the kidnapper? a kidnapper staging a kidnapping to look like a kidnapping?

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:@ Stolat

Sergio also changed his tune about the window being the sure point of entry.

He just wasn't sure anymore .

You know what I mean?

if i woke up to find a screen knocked out and a window open i would be most definite that was the point of entry and/or exit because why else would it be like that? i don't understand his flip-flopping on that issue-regardless of what police tell you. if he said her window was last closed and then wakes up to find it open then 1+1 right? so if he didn't stage it who did-the kidnapper? a kidnapper staging a kidnapping to look like a kidnapping?

Right!

Chickenbutt wrote:I am not a detail person.....lol
What time did the Party Store clerk say the brother came in?
Someone said she saw one of the brothers near LA Fitness around 8:00. Leaving out Sergio and all of his times, my suspicion is that all the unbiased witnesses may have their times off by several minutes at best.

well that one is even weirder because she (Party Store clerk) said it was the younger boy and it was an hour after 911 was called.

Tamta wrote:@ Stolat

Sergio also changed his tune about the window being the sure point of entry.

He just wasn't sure anymore .

You know what I mean?

Of course he has. Because he's made two very inconsistent statements. And in order for someone to have come in through the window -- he's now made it impossible for them to have come in prior to 5AM. So if the window was the entry point, he's given them very little time to enter because very likely he knows no one would enter the house while his wife was up getting ready for work which is supposedly around 6am since she was reportedly either just leaving for or just arriving at work at 7am. So ONE HOUR?? are you freaking kidding me?? And so he's realized that as well and has changed his tune about the window theory.

What about if he knew someone was going to retaliate because someone, Justin, owed money and they were going to come to the Celis home, or Sergio was a part of it as well, and they were going to the Celis home, Justin and Sergio could have staged something, a kidnapping, to keep the thugs away?

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:@ Stolat

Sergio also changed his tune about the window being the sure point of entry.

He just wasn't sure anymore .

You know what I mean?

Of course he has. Because he's made two very inconsistent statements. And in order for someone to have come in through the window -- he's now made it impossible for them to have come in prior to 5AM. So if the window was the entry point, he's given them very little time to enter because very likely he knows no one would enter the house while his wife was up getting ready for work which is supposedly around 6am since she was reportedly either just leaving for or just arriving at work at 7am. So ONE HOUR?? are you freaking kidding me?? And so he's realized that as well and has changed his tune about the window theory.

Right, because in his statement about waking up at 5am, and the window being closed, he placed himself in that room/doorway at 5am.

IMO, people are notoriously bad at estimating time. What exactly does "around 8:00" mean to that person? To me it means anyway from 7:45 to 8:15. So anyway, I take times, except the 911 call, with a grain of salt. They are all approximent IMO. And do we know that Sergio was telling 911 the truth about where the boys were? Just a thought.

Going out the window makes sense since that would keep the risk of being seen by anyone in the household to a minimum, rather than carrying Isabel out the front door.

Chickenbutt wrote:IMO, people are notoriously bad at estimating time. What exactly does "around 8:00" mean to that person? To me it means anyway from 7:45 to 8:15. So anyway, I take times, except the 911 call, with a grain of salt. They are all approximent IMO. And do we know that Sergio was telling 911 the truth about where the boys were? Just a thought.

We don't anything as fact, since none of us were there. We can only piece together what happened by what the evidence is saying happened, and that is sketchy.

We know what the police are thinking by where their efforts are going, searching the washes~

They can claim to be looking for a live Isabel, but if they are dragging a body of water with a camera, and searching the washes, that tells me differently.

Calypso wrote:Going out the window makes sense since that would keep the risk of being seen by anyone in the household to a minimum, rather than carrying Isabel out the front door.

And their is a gate through the fence that accesses the side street directly.

Calypso wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Tamta wrote:@ Stolat

Sergio also changed his tune about the window being the sure point of entry.

He just wasn't sure anymore .

You know what I mean?

Of course he has. Because he's made two very inconsistent statements. And in order for someone to have come in through the window -- he's now made it impossible for them to have come in prior to 5AM. So if the window was the entry point, he's given them very little time to enter because very likely he knows no one would enter the house while his wife was up getting ready for work which is supposedly around 6am since she was reportedly either just leaving for or just arriving at work at 7am. So ONE HOUR?? are you freaking kidding me?? And so he's realized that as well and has changed his tune about the window theory.

Right, because in his statement about waking up at 5am, and the window being closed, he placed himself in that room/doorway at 5am.

he didn't say he saw the window closed at 5am, just that it was closed the last time he saw Isabel and per his interview with local media the last time he saw her she was "just walking by"...i really want to know if anyone put her into bed, closed her light, told her good-night, closed her door or not and physically checked the window (which are all the things i do when my kids go to bed).

Chickenbutt wrote:IMO, people are notoriously bad at estimating time. What exactly does "around 8:00" mean to that person? To me it means anyway from 7:45 to 8:15. So anyway, I take times, except the 911 call, with a grain of salt. They are all approximent IMO. And do we know that Sergio was telling 911 the truth about where the boys were? Just a thought.

The older sons call and other people have put the kids out of the house.

Sergio avoids direct comments on their exact locations

I guess that was my point Calypso. We truly don't know much of anything for fact. I love the fact that we call all opine here and try to figure where the case is going with so little evidence. Everyones has a different take on something, but we seem to agree on certain things. I like reading and evaluating others opinions.

ETA: and we are all civil...right Tamta?