Isabel Celis -- Missing 4/20/12 #2

Honeysage wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/link/563529/pdf-celis-3-details-on-air-search-boot-prints-found-at-home



2nd paragraph...knew i wasn't crazy...no footprints located in yard.

no picture appeare in your link - i think you can see it because the site is cached on your machine.

2nd paragraph of which page? The narrative starts on page 4 but I didn't see anything in Para2 of pg 4 that pertained to footprints.

hmm...really-you don't see anything-no screenshot? sorry-had to redo my whole PDF formatting...so it is PDF3, page 68 where officer states no footprints in the yard

no. just a little red "X" . I had same problem a few months ago on THM. To test, I would post the picture, then clear out my entire internet cache history (history, cookies, etc) and then reload the blog page and voila, I too would see only the little red X from my own picture. That's how I knew I was doing it wrong. It's because you are posting a picture that only *your* computer knows the address to and since you obviously have already visited the webpage of the source where you copied the photo, the address to that source is cached on your machine so any other place you reference that photo - your machine already knows where to go look for it. But if you clear out your cache history - your computer is as blind to that photo as the rest of us are. If other people can see that photo, it's because at some point they too have visited that same website source and that addy is cached on their machine too.

Honeysage, I can see the images in both your posts.

jra wrote:Honeysage, I can see the images in both your posts.

jra - Have you ever seen that report before?

Stolat wrote:

jra wrote:Honeysage, I can see the images in both your posts.

jra - Have you ever seen that report before?

Nope, I'm still trying to catch up and haven't ever seen that report.

jra wrote:Honeysage, I can see the images in both your posts.

yeah i can see it from my other computer and it's not cached on there.

Honeysage wrote:

jra wrote:Honeysage, I can see the images in both your posts.

yeah i can see it from my other computer and it's not cached on there.

I too can see it.

Honeysage wrote:

jra wrote:Honeysage, I can see the images in both your posts.

yeah i can see it from my other computer and it's not cached on there.

well, must be this computer then. I can't see any of them and yet I see other's pictures. I do notice the picture is a .PNG type instead of a typical JPG or BMP - so maybe that has something to do with this computer not seeing PNG format types. I just know that when others could not see photos I linked to, Blue explained to me the cached addy phenomenom.

jra wrote:

Stolat wrote:

jra wrote:Honeysage, I can see the images in both your posts.

jra - Have you ever seen that report before?

Nope, I'm still trying to catch up and haven't ever seen that report.

it's definitley been there since they first released documents...i wrote it up in my 1st summary which is why i wanted to track it down because i thought maybe i had read too quickly and misinterpreted the information. it's just odd there were no footprints if Sergio and boys were looking for Isa in the yard...unless dogs running around messed up prints.

Honeysage wrote:http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/link/563529/pdf-celis-3-details-on-air-search-boot-prints-found-at-home



2nd paragraph...knew i wasn't crazy...no footprints located in yard.

Okay -so on page 68 2nd paragraph, the officer states:

"I checked the back yard of the residence and located the removed screen as described. The window was completely open. I searched for evidence in the back yard, but was unable to locate anything of value, including footprints.

I checked the perimeter of the back wall of the residence for dig marks or footprints. I located two shoeprints on a small grey electrical box bordering the south wall."

So.... footprints on an electrical box interior to the property (inside the wall) but none in the yard surrounding it (!!!)

He does not say if the "two" shoeprints are of the same shoe or of two distinctly different shoes (indicating more than one person (?)

Thank you Ellie Tza for great floorplan

so if we use this to plot out where shoe/boot prints were found:

1.) small green electrical box SE corner (near master bedroom-alley side/E. Scarlett)

2.) prints 5 feet south of the box(alley side)

3.) prints gas meter west side of residence (near neighbor "Alicia"-Isa's side of house)

4.) prints small grey electrical box bordering south wall (backyard-against wall of home)

do i have that correct? where is wooden fence? on E Scarlett side? anyone better at doing this please take over...gotta leave the house for a bit.

The statement, "I checked the perimeter of the back wall of the residence for dig marks or footprints. I located two shoeprints on a small grey electrical box bordering the south wall." says to me outside the wall.

I guess it could be either, but we haven't seen any pictures of a box inside the backyard by the fence. I also originally thought the box outside the wall was a cable box. I'm not sure if there is just one box back there or maybe two, one electrical and one cable.

Stolat wrote:

SweetT wrote:Question: Why is this Nathan dude using a Mag flashlight in the day? Since he was not home originally was he out all the night before? Sorry just thinking aloud.

And can anyone account for his presence all night the night Isa went missing? Can his gf say for sure he was with her the whole time? My bf got up the other night 3 times to let the dog out because he said she was pacing and needed to tinkle and was keeping him up. I didn't hear him exit - ever. 3 times he was outside the house, and I had no idea.

Perhaps you did not hear him because it was an "ordinary" sound?
Nothing out of the norm to become alarmed with?

SweetT wrote:This is what I have been discussing. Not sure if it is between Isa and the boys bedroom but if it is, then it would not be for looking into the parents room to see if they are asleep.

Matching footprints in the soft dirt around a green electric box along the south wall of the Celis home, on the top of the electric box and on a gas meter box – all along on the southeast perimeter of the wall leading to the alley ( S. Jefferson and E. Cooper) were found by a first response mobile team member and described as “wolverine” pattern as opposed to standard police issue work boots.

A description of the electrical box and footprints are in the PDF 2 batch on page 2.

"I also assisted CSS Nygren with photographing several shoe impressions located in the dirt from the alleyway located south of the residence and of several shoe impressions located on top of an electrical box located directly behind the residence in the same alleyway".

nanaof4 wrote:

SweetT wrote:This is what I have been discussing. Not sure if it is between Isa and the boys bedroom but if it is, then it would not be for looking into the parents room to see if they are asleep.

Matching footprints in the soft dirt around a green electric box along the south wall of the Celis home, on the top of the electric box and on a gas meter box – all along on the southeast perimeter of the wall leading to the alley ( S. Jefferson and E. Cooper) were found by a first response mobile team member and described as “wolverine” pattern as opposed to standard police issue work boots.

A description of the electrical box and footprints are in the PDF 2 batch on page 2.

"I also assisted CSS Nygren with photographing several shoe impressions located in the dirt from the alleyway located south of the residence and of several shoe impressions located on top of an electrical box located directly behind the residence in the same alleyway".

Are the prints in the dirt near/next to the box also?

Behind residence but not behind wall?

What do you think.

I am still placing prints from Honeysage's post.

Honeysage wrote:

Thank you Ellie Tza for great floorplan

so if we use this to plot out where shoe/boot prints were found:

1.) small green electrical box SE corner (near master bedroom-alley side/E. Scarlett)

2.) prints 5 feet south of the box(alley side)

3.) prints gas meter west side of residence (near neighbor "Alicia"-Isa's side of house)

4.) prints small grey electrical box bordering south wall (backyard-against wall of home)

do i have that correct? where is wooden fence? on E Scarlett side? anyone better at doing this please take over...gotta leave the house for a bit.

1. SE would be area closest to Isabel's room. Master Bedroom is on the West Side.

2. 5' South of the box outside SE area of wall would go into back alley.

3. Prints on box, West side of residence: Master Bedroom Side.

4. Prints on box SOuth wall: Bordering Back Alley

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

Thank you Ellie Tza for great floorplan

so if we use this to plot out where shoe/boot prints were found:

1.) small green electrical box SE corner (near master bedroom-alley side/E. Scarlett)

2.) prints 5 feet south of the box(alley side)

3.) prints gas meter west side of residence (near neighbor "Alicia"-Isa's side of house)

4.) prints small grey electrical box bordering south wall (backyard-against wall of home)

do i have that correct? where is wooden fence? on E Scarlett side? anyone better at doing this please take over...gotta leave the house for a bit.

1. SE would be area closest to Isabel's room. Master Bedroom is on the West Side.

2. 5' South of the box outside SE area of wall would go into back alley.

3. Prints on box, West side of residence: Master Bedroom Side.

4. Prints on box SOuth wall: Bordering Back Alley

you're right...i'm so directionally challenged.

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

Thank you Ellie Tza for great floorplan

so if we use this to plot out where shoe/boot prints were found:

1.) small green electrical box SE corner (near master bedroom-alley side/E. Scarlett)

2.) prints 5 feet south of the box(alley side)

3.) prints gas meter west side of residence (near neighbor "Alicia"-Isa's side of house)

4.) prints small grey electrical box bordering south wall (backyard-against wall of home)

do i have that correct? where is wooden fence? on E Scarlett side? anyone better at doing this please take over...gotta leave the house for a bit.

1. SE would be area closest to Isabel's room. Master Bedroom is on the West Side.

2. 5' South of the box outside SE area of wall would go into back alley.

3. Prints on box, West side of residence: Master Bedroom Side.

4. Prints on box SOuth wall: Bordering Back Alley

you're right...i'm so directionally challenged.

Well I am Celis utility box challenged.

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

Thank you Ellie Tza for great floorplan

so if we use this to plot out where shoe/boot prints were found:

1.) small green electrical box SE corner (near master bedroom-alley side/E. Scarlett)

2.) prints 5 feet south of the box(alley side)

3.) prints gas meter west side of residence (near neighbor "Alicia"-Isa's side of house)

4.) prints small grey electrical box bordering south wall (backyard-against wall of home)

do i have that correct? where is wooden fence? on E Scarlett side? anyone better at doing this please take over...gotta leave the house for a bit.

1. SE would be area closest to Isabel's room. Master Bedroom is on the West Side.

2. 5' South of the box outside SE area of wall would go into back alley.

3. Prints on box, West side of residence: Master Bedroom Side.

4. Prints on box SOuth wall: Bordering Back Alley

you're right...i'm so directionally challenged.

Ok,

East Wall Prints-electrical Meter
(Without knowing direction of toe)

1. Descending from roof to ground
2. Accessing roof from ground
3. Visual Accessing kids bathroom window by

SE Box along Adobe Property Wall
(Without knowing direction of toe or confirmation of continuity)

1. Access property from without
2. Exiting property from with in
3. Getting a view of back yard, South side of house, and East side.
4. View of anything traveling southbound on side street adjacent to west side of house.

West Side Box
(Without knowing direction of toe or relationship to garage and height of box)

1. Viewing back of house
2. Accessing garage roof?

Need:

-The toe direction of the prints
-How many different prints
-Are these prints IN dust or prints ON (dirt/black from sole) surface of boxes
(would help in discerning if they were new or could have been there
Awhile)

Here's an excellent article by Blink of Blink on Crime...1 of 2 parts....written about what the documents disclose:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2012/05/29/isabel-celis-abduction-breaking-news-docs-show-blood-in-bedroom-police-eye-family-and-neighbor/

Thanks for asking, Honey. I am directionally challenged with this case, also.

Puzzler wrote:Here's an excellent article by Blink of Blink on Crime...1 of 2 parts....written about what the documents disclose:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2012/05/29/isabel-celis-abduction-breaking-news-docs-show-blood-in-bedroom-police-eye-family-and-neighbor/

cool.
you are the bomb.

Okay - this might be stupid but a thought just popped in when reconsidering the part about not knowing whose blood was on Isa's floor...

Isa just got a puppy for Christmas. I think back to the time I got my daughter a dog for xmas. Could one of her dogs have gone into heat (possibly the puppy) and that is the blood on the floor?

Stolat wrote:Okay - this might be stupid but a thought just popped in when reconsidering the part about not knowing whose blood was on Isa's floor...

Isa just got a puppy for Christmas. I think back to the time I got my daughter a dog for xmas. Could one of her dogs have gone into heat (possibly the puppy) and that is the blood on the floor?

I had actually thought the same thing but more specifically in regard to the car samples and shower curtain.

I also wondered if we were talking about fresh blood, or blood stains on her bedroom floor and of course how much. I am trying to wrap my head around harming her in the house to create blood and not hearing anything, and being that bold as a stranger to inflict pain when its obvious others are in the house?

Puzzler wrote:Here's an excellent article by Blink of Blink on Crime...1 of 2 parts....written about what the documents disclose:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2012/05/29/isabel-celis-abduction-breaking-news-docs-show-blood-in-bedroom-police-eye-family-and-neighbor/

This is quite good! Thanks!

So confirmation that

-Blood found in the driver’s seat of the Toyota Corolla mostly driven by Sergio Celis
-Blood evidence found in the red inoperable Acura Integra
-Blood evidence found on a stained shower curtain and white hat.

no immediate reference to finding blood evidence in the trunk - but Mark Furhman referenced it several times yesterday. I can only assume either the shower curtain or white hat was "in the trunk" and that is what Mark is referring to.

Also, I'm not so concerned about someone using the word "abducted" as Sergio did early on (as this article suggests inpropriety). Anyone who watches the news now hears that word often because "kidnapped" is quite out of date and inappropriate in most cases because we all have seen the stats show that ransom is rarely ever involved and that is typically associated with "kidnapping". Abduction is the far more appropriate word for taking a child unlawfully and so I don't blame Sergio if he's watched the news just like the rest of us.

Question arising from article:
what time did Sergio call Isa's coach that morning to tell him she was missing?

8:30 police reportedly *begin* their neighborhood door-to-door interviews (as it is pointed out they had already been at the scene prior to that for several minutes already. Ten minutes later @8:40 they arrive at Alicia Gregory/Nate McDonald's house. She answers door and Nate is not there.

8:40a - officer at McDonald/Gregory door - Nate not home
9:00a-9:30a - time reported by Chris Lutzenberg (neighbor near the park) that a man described as McDonald was sitting on his ELECTRICAL box. His report was not made until 10:30am at the time McDonald emerged from the park
10:15a - officer discovers McDonald Green Jetta parked on 14th st on perimeter of Wilshire Heights Park
10:15-10:30a - officer is waiting at north end of park by Green Jetta and sees McDonald walking across park from the south end with his maglight (where incidentally bedsheets/bedding are found just south of the park). So it is very logical to consider McDonald had deposited the sheets, crossed the street, entered the park at the south end, walked north all the way across the park's open field and ended up back at his car on the north end greeted by the officer.
11:23a - officer finds girls bedding and bag of clothes (gender for clothes not specified) 50 yards from where McDonald was witnessed by the officer entering the south end of the park (as he made his way across the field back to his car). These items were located in a place where McDonald would have surely seen them had he been in that wash searching -as he had claimed. So either he lied about being in that wash searching or he lied about finding nothing.

McDonald tells the officer he had heard about Isa missing and was searching the tunnels and WASHES just south of the park and found NOTHING. Interesting, because girls bedding was found in the very wash that McDonald searched and yet McDonald didn't report it.

Question -- McDonald was not home in time that morning to be present for the officer's announcement to the neighbors. So 1) did anyone at McDonald's residence ever witness him coming home prior to 10:00am but after 8:40a when word was let out about Isa -OR- 2) did anyone document a phone call to McDonald and testify that they alerted him of Isa missing during that time?

Question -- by chance does Chris Lutzenberg also have a young daughter? Did he check his windows that morning??

color77 wrote:I also wondered if we were talking about fresh blood, or blood stains on her bedroom floor and of course how much. I am trying to wrap my head around harming her in the house to create blood and not hearing anything, and being that bold as a stranger to inflict pain when its obvious others are in the house?

I am curious as to the window for identifying blood as recent.

I know after a certain point the age of blood can not be forensically determined, can it?

These blood samples would need to placed in the time frame surrounding Isabel's disappearance.

I am wondering to what extent that can be done.

However her blood being discovered in her room and another vehicle could be weighed more heavily.

Not sure what time the coach was called.
IIRC, Isabel had a 9 AM game.
The coach was called before the game.
So, if SC woke at 8 AM and he called before 9 AM, he would have called fairly quickly. (He was also calling 911 and his wife.)

I find it odd he remembered to call the coach about Isobel missing.
I find it odd he would take care of a problem with a dog running loose-- was that a ticket?

IMO, most normal parents would be focused on their missing child.
They would be alarmed and frantic to find the little one.
The rest? Let it go for another day!

Stolat wrote:

Puzzler wrote:Here's an excellent article by Blink of Blink on Crime...1 of 2 parts....written about what the documents disclose:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2012/05/29/isabel-celis-abduction-breaking-news-docs-show-blood-in-bedroom-police-eye-family-and-neighbor/

This is quite good! Thanks!

So confirmation that

-Blood found in the driver’s seat of the Toyota Corolla mostly driven by Sergio Celis
-Blood evidence found in the red inoperable Acura Integra
-Blood evidence found on a stained shower curtain and white hat.

no immediate reference to finding blood evidence in the trunk - but Mark Furhman referenced it several times yesterday. I can only assume either the shower curtain or white hat was "in the trunk" and that is what Mark is referring to.

Also, I'm not so concerned about someone using the word "abducted" as Sergio did early on (as this article suggests inpropriety). Anyone who watches the news now hears that word often because "kidnapped" is quite out of date and inappropriate in most cases because we all have seen the stats show that ransom is rarely ever involved and that is typically associated with "kidnapping". Abduction is the far more appropriate word for taking a child unlawfully and so I don't blame Sergio if he's watched the news just like the rest of us.

Question arising from article:
what time did Sergio call Isa's coach that morning to tell him she was missing?

8:30 police reportedly *begin* their neighborhood door-to-door interviews (as it is pointed out they had already been at the scene prior to that for several minutes already. Ten minutes later @8:40 they arrive at Alicia Gregory/Nate McDonald's house. She answers door and Nate is not there.

8:40a - officer at McDonald/Gregory door - Nate not home
9:00a-9:30a - time reported by Chris Lutzenberg (neighbor near the park) that a man described as McDonald was sitting on his ELECTRICAL box. His report was not made until 10:30am at the time McDonald emerged from the park
10:15a - officer discovers McDonald Green Jetta parked on 14th st on perimeter of Wilshire Heights Park
10:15-10:30a - officer is waiting at north end of park by Green Jetta and sees McDonald walking across park from the south end with his maglight (where incidentally bedsheets/bedding are found just south of the park). So it is very logical to consider McDonald had deposited the sheets, crossed the street, entered the park at the south end, walked north all the way across the park's open field and ended up back at his car on the north end greeted by the officer.
11:23a - officer finds girls bedding and bag of clothes (gender for clothes not specified) 50 yards from where McDonald was witnessed by the officer entering the south end of the park (as he made his way across the field back to his car). These items were located in a place where McDonald would have surely seen them had he been in that wash searching -as he had claimed. So either he lied about being in that wash searching or he lied about finding nothing.

McDonald tells the officer he had heard about Isa missing and was searching the tunnels and WASHES just south of the park and found NOTHING. Interesting, because girls bedding was found in the very wash that McDonald searched and yet McDonald didn't report it.

Question -- McDonald was not home in time that morning to be present for the officer's announcement to the neighbors. So 1) did anyone at McDonald's residence ever witness him coming home prior to 10:00am but after 8:40a when word was let out about Isa -OR- 2) did anyone document a phone call to McDonald and testify that they alerted him of Isa missing during that time?

Question -- by chance does Chris Lutzenberg also have a young daughter? Did he check his windows that morning??

Is there anything to indicate or substantiate a prior relationship between the Celis' and this Nathan character or his gf?

Freckles wrote:Not sure what time the coach was called.
IIRC, Isabel had a 9 AM game.
The coach was called before the game.
So, if SC woke at 8 AM and he called before 9 AM, he would have called fairly quickly. (He was also calling 911 and his wife.)

I find it odd he remembered to call the coach about Isobel missing.
I find it odd he would take care of a problem with a dog running loose-- was that a ticket?

IMO, most normal parents would be focused on their missing child.
They would be alarmed and frantic to find the little one.
The rest? Let it go for another day!

I thought that I read somewhere that Sergio also coached baseball. If so that may be why he thought of calling the coach... or perhaps to see if Isa was with one of the other children there, but got caught up in the storyline!!

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Puzzler wrote:Here's an excellent article by Blink of Blink on Crime...1 of 2 parts....written about what the documents disclose:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2012/05/29/isabel-celis-abduction-breaking-news-docs-show-blood-in-bedroom-police-eye-family-and-neighbor/

This is quite good! Thanks!

So confirmation that

-Blood found in the driver’s seat of the Toyota Corolla mostly driven by Sergio Celis
-Blood evidence found in the red inoperable Acura Integra
-Blood evidence found on a stained shower curtain and white hat.

no immediate reference to finding blood evidence in the trunk - but Mark Furhman referenced it several times yesterday. I can only assume either the shower curtain or white hat was "in the trunk" and that is what Mark is referring to.

Also, I'm not so concerned about someone using the word "abducted" as Sergio did early on (as this article suggests inpropriety). Anyone who watches the news now hears that word often because "kidnapped" is quite out of date and inappropriate in most cases because we all have seen the stats show that ransom is rarely ever involved and that is typically associated with "kidnapping". Abduction is the far more appropriate word for taking a child unlawfully and so I don't blame Sergio if he's watched the news just like the rest of us.

Question arising from article:
what time did Sergio call Isa's coach that morning to tell him she was missing?

8:30 police reportedly *begin* their neighborhood door-to-door interviews (as it is pointed out they had already been at the scene prior to that for several minutes already. Ten minutes later @8:40 they arrive at Alicia Gregory/Nate McDonald's house. She answers door and Nate is not there.

8:40a - officer at McDonald/Gregory door - Nate not home
9:00a-9:30a - time reported by Chris Lutzenberg (neighbor near the park) that a man described as McDonald was sitting on his ELECTRICAL box. His report was not made until 10:30am at the time McDonald emerged from the park
10:15a - officer discovers McDonald Green Jetta parked on 14th st on perimeter of Wilshire Heights Park
10:15-10:30a - officer is waiting at north end of park by Green Jetta and sees McDonald walking across park from the south end with his maglight (where incidentally bedsheets/bedding are found just south of the park). So it is very logical to consider McDonald had deposited the sheets, crossed the street, entered the park at the south end, walked north all the way across the park's open field and ended up back at his car on the north end greeted by the officer.
11:23a - officer finds girls bedding and bag of clothes (gender for clothes not specified) 50 yards from where McDonald was witnessed by the officer entering the south end of the park (as he made his way across the field back to his car). These items were located in a place where McDonald would have surely seen them had he been in that wash searching -as he had claimed. So either he lied about being in that wash searching or he lied about finding nothing.

McDonald tells the officer he had heard about Isa missing and was searching the tunnels and WASHES just south of the park and found NOTHING. Interesting, because girls bedding was found in the very wash that McDonald searched and yet McDonald didn't report it.

Question -- McDonald was not home in time that morning to be present for the officer's announcement to the neighbors. So 1) did anyone at McDonald's residence ever witness him coming home prior to 10:00am but after 8:40a when word was let out about Isa -OR- 2) did anyone document a phone call to McDonald and testify that they alerted him of Isa missing during that time?

Question -- by chance does Chris Lutzenberg also have a young daughter? Did he check his windows that morning??

Is there anything to indicate or substantiate a prior relationship between the Celis' and this Nathan character or his gf?

Going over PDFS again, I am at least glad to have found this and that the police think this Nathan character is just as suspicous as we do:
If you scroll mid way down into the PDF (couldnt figure out how to paste it) it gives the list of items the took pictures of at Nathans home, tested both he and the gf's car for luminol reaction etc. PG 2 of 2 Tuscon Police Deparment Supplementary Narrative Document :

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/link/563536/pdf-celis-5-allegations-of-owed-money-evidence-from-home

color77 wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Puzzler wrote:Here's an excellent article by Blink of Blink on Crime...1 of 2 parts....written about what the documents disclose:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2012/05/29/isabel-celis-abduction-breaking-news-docs-show-blood-in-bedroom-police-eye-family-and-neighbor/

This is quite good! Thanks!

So confirmation that

-Blood found in the driver’s seat of the Toyota Corolla mostly driven by Sergio Celis
-Blood evidence found in the red inoperable Acura Integra
-Blood evidence found on a stained shower curtain and white hat.

no immediate reference to finding blood evidence in the trunk - but Mark Furhman referenced it several times yesterday. I can only assume either the shower curtain or white hat was "in the trunk" and that is what Mark is referring to.

Also, I'm not so concerned about someone using the word "abducted" as Sergio did early on (as this article suggests inpropriety). Anyone who watches the news now hears that word often because "kidnapped" is quite out of date and inappropriate in most cases because we all have seen the stats show that ransom is rarely ever involved and that is typically associated with "kidnapping". Abduction is the far more appropriate word for taking a child unlawfully and so I don't blame Sergio if he's watched the news just like the rest of us.

Question arising from article:
what time did Sergio call Isa's coach that morning to tell him she was missing?

8:30 police reportedly *begin* their neighborhood door-to-door interviews (as it is pointed out they had already been at the scene prior to that for several minutes already. Ten minutes later @8:40 they arrive at Alicia Gregory/Nate McDonald's house. She answers door and Nate is not there.

8:40a - officer at McDonald/Gregory door - Nate not home
9:00a-9:30a - time reported by Chris Lutzenberg (neighbor near the park) that a man described as McDonald was sitting on his ELECTRICAL box. His report was not made until 10:30am at the time McDonald emerged from the park
10:15a - officer discovers McDonald Green Jetta parked on 14th st on perimeter of Wilshire Heights Park
10:15-10:30a - officer is waiting at north end of park by Green Jetta and sees McDonald walking across park from the south end with his maglight (where incidentally bedsheets/bedding are found just south of the park). So it is very logical to consider McDonald had deposited the sheets, crossed the street, entered the park at the south end, walked north all the way across the park's open field and ended up back at his car on the north end greeted by the officer.
11:23a - officer finds girls bedding and bag of clothes (gender for clothes not specified) 50 yards from where McDonald was witnessed by the officer entering the south end of the park (as he made his way across the field back to his car). These items were located in a place where McDonald would have surely seen them had he been in that wash searching -as he had claimed. So either he lied about being in that wash searching or he lied about finding nothing.

McDonald tells the officer he had heard about Isa missing and was searching the tunnels and WASHES just south of the park and found NOTHING. Interesting, because girls bedding was found in the very wash that McDonald searched and yet McDonald didn't report it.

Question -- McDonald was not home in time that morning to be present for the officer's announcement to the neighbors. So 1) did anyone at McDonald's residence ever witness him coming home prior to 10:00am but after 8:40a when word was let out about Isa -OR- 2) did anyone document a phone call to McDonald and testify that they alerted him of Isa missing during that time?

Question -- by chance does Chris Lutzenberg also have a young daughter? Did he check his windows that morning??

Is there anything to indicate or substantiate a prior relationship between the Celis' and this Nathan character or his gf?

Going over PDFS again, I am at least glad to have found this and that the police think this Nathan character is just as suspicous as we do:
If you scroll mid way down into the PDF (couldnt figure out how to paste it) it gives the list of items the took pictures of at Nathans home, tested both he and the gf's car for luminol reaction etc. PG 2 of 2 Tuscon Police Deparment Supplementary Narrative Document :

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/link/563536/pdf-celis-5-allegations-of-owed-money-evidence-from-home

I wonder if they had any contact before- these homes.

Thanks for specifically posting this.

He seems really odd to say the least.

On all days to ditch items in a wash, that one?

Tamta wrote:

color77 wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Puzzler wrote:Here's an excellent article by Blink of Blink on Crime...1 of 2 parts....written about what the documents disclose:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2012/05/29/isabel-celis-abduction-breaking-news-docs-show-blood-in-bedroom-police-eye-family-and-neighbor/

This is quite good! Thanks!

So confirmation that

-Blood found in the driver’s seat of the Toyota Corolla mostly driven by Sergio Celis
-Blood evidence found in the red inoperable Acura Integra
-Blood evidence found on a stained shower curtain and white hat.

no immediate reference to finding blood evidence in the trunk - but Mark Furhman referenced it several times yesterday. I can only assume either the shower curtain or white hat was "in the trunk" and that is what Mark is referring to.

Also, I'm not so concerned about someone using the word "abducted" as Sergio did early on (as this article suggests inpropriety). Anyone who watches the news now hears that word often because "kidnapped" is quite out of date and inappropriate in most cases because we all have seen the stats show that ransom is rarely ever involved and that is typically associated with "kidnapping". Abduction is the far more appropriate word for taking a child unlawfully and so I don't blame Sergio if he's watched the news just like the rest of us.

Question arising from article:
what time did Sergio call Isa's coach that morning to tell him she was missing?

8:30 police reportedly *begin* their neighborhood door-to-door interviews (as it is pointed out they had already been at the scene prior to that for several minutes already. Ten minutes later @8:40 they arrive at Alicia Gregory/Nate McDonald's house. She answers door and Nate is not there.

8:40a - officer at McDonald/Gregory door - Nate not home
9:00a-9:30a - time reported by Chris Lutzenberg (neighbor near the park) that a man described as McDonald was sitting on his ELECTRICAL box. His report was not made until 10:30am at the time McDonald emerged from the park
10:15a - officer discovers McDonald Green Jetta parked on 14th st on perimeter of Wilshire Heights Park
10:15-10:30a - officer is waiting at north end of park by Green Jetta and sees McDonald walking across park from the south end with his maglight (where incidentally bedsheets/bedding are found just south of the park). So it is very logical to consider McDonald had deposited the sheets, crossed the street, entered the park at the south end, walked north all the way across the park's open field and ended up back at his car on the north end greeted by the officer.
11:23a - officer finds girls bedding and bag of clothes (gender for clothes not specified) 50 yards from where McDonald was witnessed by the officer entering the south end of the park (as he made his way across the field back to his car). These items were located in a place where McDonald would have surely seen them had he been in that wash searching -as he had claimed. So either he lied about being in that wash searching or he lied about finding nothing.

McDonald tells the officer he had heard about Isa missing and was searching the tunnels and WASHES just south of the park and found NOTHING. Interesting, because girls bedding was found in the very wash that McDonald searched and yet McDonald didn't report it.

Question -- McDonald was not home in time that morning to be present for the officer's announcement to the neighbors. So 1) did anyone at McDonald's residence ever witness him coming home prior to 10:00am but after 8:40a when word was let out about Isa -OR- 2) did anyone document a phone call to McDonald and testify that they alerted him of Isa missing during that time?

Question -- by chance does Chris Lutzenberg also have a young daughter? Did he check his windows that morning??

Is there anything to indicate or substantiate a prior relationship between the Celis' and this Nathan character or his gf?

Going over PDFS again, I am at least glad to have found this and that the police think this Nathan character is just as suspicous as we do:
If you scroll mid way down into the PDF (couldnt figure out how to paste it) it gives the list of items the took pictures of at Nathans home, tested both he and the gf's car for luminol reaction etc. PG 2 of 2 Tuscon Police Deparment Supplementary Narrative Document :

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/link/563536/pdf-celis-5-allegations-of-owed-money-evidence-from-home

I wonder if they had any contact before- these homes.

Thanks for specifically posting this.

He seems really odd to say the least.

On all days to ditch items in a wash, that one?

To be exact pg 31 of the pdf has the report of what the police took note of with their search warrant of Nathans house.

why is there no news on Isa? shouldn't forensics be back by now...were the stains blood or not, was it Isa's? why are there no searches? why aren't the boys back with Sergio? is he even trying to work with CPS to get back visitation? the silence around this is maddening!!! they throw us a doc dump which gives just enough information to make everyone suspect-hasn't really cleared up anything for me. it is so frustrating...

Honeysage wrote:why is there no news on Isa? shouldn't forensics be back by now...were the stains blood or not, was it Isa's? why are there no searches? why aren't the boys back with Sergio? is he even trying to work with CPS to get back visitation? the silence around this is maddening!!! they throw us a doc dump which gives just enough information to make everyone suspect-hasn't really cleared up anything for me. it is so frustrating...

Or medium reports regarding SC's boss' dream?

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:why is there no news on Isa? shouldn't forensics be back by now...were the stains blood or not, was it Isa's? why are there no searches? why aren't the boys back with Sergio? is he even trying to work with CPS to get back visitation? the silence around this is maddening!!! they throw us a doc dump which gives just enough information to make everyone suspect-hasn't really cleared up anything for me. it is so frustrating...

Or medium reports regarding SC's boss' dream?

yeah i'm so glad they added every crazy person's dreams and visions to the PDF packets...and it's so important for me to know how many bathroom breaks LE needed to cover, those 500 pages could have been condensed to about a dozen-not sure how pages and pages of license plate numbers is going to help find Isa.

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:why is there no news on Isa? shouldn't forensics be back by now...were the stains blood or not, was it Isa's? why are there no searches? why aren't the boys back with Sergio? is he even trying to work with CPS to get back visitation? the silence around this is maddening!!! they throw us a doc dump which gives just enough information to make everyone suspect-hasn't really cleared up anything for me. it is so frustrating...

Or medium reports regarding SC's boss' dream?

yeah i'm so glad they added every crazy person's dreams and visions to the PDF packets...and it's so important for me to know how many bathroom breaks LE needed to cover, those 500 pages could have been condensed to about a dozen-not sure how pages and pages of license plate numbers is going to help find Isa.

Agreed.
The media hasn't even much to say about these docs.

For the life of me I can not figure out how to post pics etc.

So here is the link to the home of witness Chris Lutzelberger who saw Nate McDonald that morning sitting on his electrical box. Chris lives on one side of Wilshire Heights Park and East 14th Street is where Nate McDonald's car was parked. East 12th Street is just a few streets north of the park's location.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=371+south+essex+lane,+tucson,+az&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x86d66f965c4677f5:0x71630ad2963608b5,371+S+Essex+Ln,+Tucson,+AZ+85711&gl=us&ei=5bLHT4fHI8nTgAe1_oCADg&oi=geocode_result&sqi=2&ved=0CAkQ8gEwAA

yet Sergio will be making his 2nd court appearance on Monday for freaking dog licenses/vaccinations...rather than just pleading guilty and paying a fine but he won't go to court for his sons??? his daughter is missing and he hasn't been able to have contact with the boys for what-3 weeks now? what could they possibly be holding over him...

Honeysage wrote:yet Sergio will be making his 2nd court appearance on Monday for freaking dog licenses/vaccinations...rather than just pleading guilty and paying a fine but he won't go to court for his sons??? his daughter is missing and he hasn't been able to have contact with the boys for what-3 weeks now? what could they possibly be holding over him...

Well no one appears to be searching for her so I think that LE and the family know she is either dead or kidnapped by a particular person or group.

I am fine outruling stranger abduction.

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:yet Sergio will be making his 2nd court appearance on Monday for freaking dog licenses/vaccinations...rather than just pleading guilty and paying a fine but he won't go to court for his sons??? his daughter is missing and he hasn't been able to have contact with the boys for what-3 weeks now? what could they possibly be holding over him...

Well no one appears to be searching for her so I think that LE and the family know she is either dead or kidnapped by a particular person or group.

I am fine outruling stranger abduction.

as suspicious as this Nate guy appears i wonder if LE would really allow that info to be released to the public if he truly were a POI...they made it clear during press conferences that they were not only protecting the ongoing investigation but also future convictions in regards to not releasing "sensitive" information. wouldn't putting out all this suspicious info surrounding him be like "tainting the jury pool"?

Honeysage wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Honeysage wrote:yet Sergio will be making his 2nd court appearance on Monday for freaking dog licenses/vaccinations...rather than just pleading guilty and paying a fine but he won't go to court for his sons??? his daughter is missing and he hasn't been able to have contact with the boys for what-3 weeks now? what could they possibly be holding over him...

Well no one appears to be searching for her so I think that LE and the family know she is either dead or kidnapped by a particular person or group.

I am fine outruling stranger abduction.

as suspicious as this Nate guy appears i wonder if LE would really allow that info to be released to the public if he truly were a POI...they made it clear during press conferences that they were not only protecting the ongoing investigation but also future convictions in regards to not releasing "sensitive" information. wouldn't putting out all this suspicious info surrounding him be like "tainting the jury pool"?

I think it's fair to assume that in almost ALL states that info seemed sensitive to an open investigation is exempt from
Disclosure and would not be voluntarily released by LE under the FOIA.

I can't view anything as a clue from this dump alone right now.

Hello. New here! I know I have a few friends here, because they told me about this great place.I finally found where to post.
Thank you Honeysage for posting that map. "Something is rotten in Denmark"...
I have to read more here - to catch up. So good to have found you!!

Honeysage wrote:yet Sergio will be making his 2nd court appearance on Monday for freaking dog licenses/vaccinations...rather than just pleading guilty and paying a fine but he won't go to court for his sons??? his daughter is missing and he hasn't been able to have contact with the boys for what-3 weeks now? what could they possibly be holding over him...

Why would he go to court for something he voluntarily agreed to? He agreed with the CPS order. That sort of indicates that apparently he feels he did something or contributed to something that would be prudent not to argue, whereas somehow he feels the contrary wtih his dogs.

I've been a vocal defender of Sergio... more accurately a strong defender of "innocent until proven guilty." And I do still stand by that! But I have a question in my head that I can't get out, in light of the recent documents. I have not read the documents myself, so I submit this question for other points of view and further explanation.

If I understand correctly, the documents reveal that the room where Isabel was put to bed the night before she went missing, contained "apparent blood" on the floor at the time of the initial police search. Is that correct? Is there any more detail provided about that blood, quantity, where it was located, if fresh/old, etc.? If the blood is "apparent", then I assume that means it was visible and would have been obvious to anyone who went into that room, is this correct? Is "apparent" a specific term in police work (for instance, does that mean visible to the naked eye without luminol or additional tests?)

If unequivocally yes that the blood was visible and anyone would have seen it, then that puts Sergio's 911 call in an entirely different light, for me. My question is this: How in the hell was Sergio calm, emotionless and glib on his 911 call, IF HE HAD JUST SEEN BLOOD IN THE FLOOR OF HIS MISSING DAUGHTER'S ROOM?

I can't seem to get past this. I'm genuinely asking for some insight on how this can fit with an innocent Sergio. I don't normally like to guess, but if I don't personally maintain a belief in the POSSIBILITY of Sergio's innocence, then I will feel like I've lost my objectivity about the case.

The only answers I can come up with that don't flag him as guilty are:
1) The blood was from another source (or at another time), he already knew about it before she went missing, and thus it was not a cause for concern regarding Isabel. (Of course, in this case, the blood would still alert the police and be cause for further testing and investigation.)
2) The blood was in small quantity as to be missed by him.
3) The blood did actually require a more active search or testing/luminol to become obvious, and wasn't actually visible and obvious as the wording suggests.

Any other thoughts or information about this line of thinking? Thanks!

Ellie Tza wrote:I've been a vocal defender of Sergio... more accurately a strong defender of "innocent until proven guilty." And I do still stand by that! But I have a question in my head that I can't get out, in light of the recent documents. I have not read the documents myself, so I submit this question for other points of view and further explanation.

If I understand correctly, the documents reveal that the room where Isabel was put to bed the night before she went missing, contained "apparent blood" on the floor at the time of the initial police search. Is that correct? Is there any more detail provided about that blood, quantity, where it was located, if fresh/old, etc.? If the blood is "apparent", then I assume that means it was visible and would have been obvious to anyone who went into that room, is this correct? Is "apparent" a specific term in police work (for instance, does that mean visible to the naked eye without luminol or additional tests?)

If unequivocally yes that the blood was visible and anyone would have seen it, then that puts Sergio's 911 call in an entirely different light, for me. My question is this: How in the hell was Sergio calm, emotionless and glib on his 911 call, IF HE HAD JUST SEEN BLOOD IN THE FLOOR OF HIS MISSING DAUGHTER'S ROOM?

I can't seem to get past this. I'm genuinely asking for some insight on how this can fit with an innocent Sergio. I don't normally like to guess, but if I don't personally maintain a belief in the POSSIBILITY of Sergio's innocence, then I will feel like I've lost my objectivity about the case.

The only answers I can come up with that don't flag him as guilty are:
1) The blood was from another source (or at another time), he already knew about it before she went missing, and thus it was not a cause for concern regarding Isabel. (Of course, in this case, the blood would still alert the police and be cause for further testing and investigation.)
2) The blood was in small quantity as to be missed by him.
3) The blood did actually require a more active search or testing/luminol to become obvious, and wasn't actually visible and obvious as the wording suggests.

Any other thoughts or information about this line of thinking? Thanks!

Ellie

I personally need more specifics on the blood.

Apparent blood has been observed in a few areas.
It's difficult to connect them with out further specifics.

I mean dogs injuring paws and female dogs in heat or with colitis can be a possible source if blood.

I just don't know either, so I'm going to wait.

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:yet Sergio will be making his 2nd court appearance on Monday for freaking dog licenses/vaccinations...rather than just pleading guilty and paying a fine but he won't go to court for his sons??? his daughter is missing and he hasn't been able to have contact with the boys for what-3 weeks now? what could they possibly be holding over him...

Why would he go to court for something he voluntarily agreed to? He agreed with the CPS order. That sort of indicates that apparently he feels he did something or contributed to something that would be prudent not to argue, whereas somehow he feels the contrary wtih his dogs.

but how long can a temporary agreement go on for? he is their father and has rights...he has not been arrested, or named POI. we have not been made aware of any rehab or therapy he may be undergoing...so what did he do/not do to make him more of a danger to be with his sons than not? and i understand we many never know since it's CPS and are dealing with privacy of minors-and i respect that-the boys must be going through an awfully confusing time. i just want things to move faster-i'm tired of this black hole that children and women seem to be falling through. following too many missing cases-i think i need a break.

Ellie Tza wrote:I've been a vocal defender of Sergio... more accurately a strong defender of "innocent until proven guilty." And I do still stand by that! But I have a question in my head that I can't get out, in light of the recent documents. I have not read the documents myself, so I submit this question for other points of view and further explanation.

If I understand correctly, the documents reveal that the room where Isabel was put to bed the night before she went missing, contained "apparent blood" on the floor at the time of the initial police search. Is that correct? Is there any more detail provided about that blood, quantity, where it was located, if fresh/old, etc.? If the blood is "apparent", then I assume that means it was visible and would have been obvious to anyone who went into that room, is this correct? Is "apparent" a specific term in police work (for instance, does that mean visible to the naked eye without luminol or additional tests?)

If unequivocally yes that the blood was visible and anyone would have seen it, then that puts Sergio's 911 call in an entirely different light, for me. My question is this: How in the hell was Sergio calm, emotionless and glib on his 911 call, IF HE HAD JUST SEEN BLOOD IN THE FLOOR OF HIS MISSING DAUGHTER'S ROOM?

I can't seem to get past this. I'm genuinely asking for some insight on how this can fit with an innocent Sergio. I don't normally like to guess, but if I don't personally maintain a belief in the POSSIBILITY of Sergio's innocence, then I will feel like I've lost my objectivity about the case.

The only answers I can come up with that don't flag him as guilty are:
1) The blood was from another source (or at another time), he already knew about it before she went missing, and thus it was not a cause for concern regarding Isabel. (Of course, in this case, the blood would still alert the police and be cause for further testing and investigation.)
2) The blood was in small quantity as to be missed by him.
3) The blood did actually require a more active search or testing/luminol to become obvious, and wasn't actually visible and obvious as the wording suggests.

Any other thoughts or information about this line of thinking? Thanks!

wish we knew what kind of flooring they had...carpet, tiles, wood? i have laminate flooring, thankfully-because with young kids-paints, markers, crushed crayons, playdoh would be nightmare on any carpet to clean up.

Honeysage wrote:

Ellie Tza wrote:I've been a vocal defender of Sergio... more accurately a strong defender of "innocent until proven guilty." And I do still stand by that! But I have a question in my head that I can't get out, in light of the recent documents. I have not read the documents myself, so I submit this question for other points of view and further explanation.

If I understand correctly, the documents reveal that the room where Isabel was put to bed the night before she went missing, contained "apparent blood" on the floor at the time of the initial police search. Is that correct? Is there any more detail provided about that blood, quantity, where it was located, if fresh/old, etc.? If the blood is "apparent", then I assume that means it was visible and would have been obvious to anyone who went into that room, is this correct? Is "apparent" a specific term in police work (for instance, does that mean visible to the naked eye without luminol or additional tests?)

If unequivocally yes that the blood was visible and anyone would have seen it, then that puts Sergio's 911 call in an entirely different light, for me. My question is this: How in the hell was Sergio calm, emotionless and glib on his 911 call, IF HE HAD JUST SEEN BLOOD IN THE FLOOR OF HIS MISSING DAUGHTER'S ROOM?

I can't seem to get past this. I'm genuinely asking for some insight on how this can fit with an innocent Sergio. I don't normally like to guess, but if I don't personally maintain a belief in the POSSIBILITY of Sergio's innocence, then I will feel like I've lost my objectivity about the case.

The only answers I can come up with that don't flag him as guilty are:
1) The blood was from another source (or at another time), he already knew about it before she went missing, and thus it was not a cause for concern regarding Isabel. (Of course, in this case, the blood would still alert the police and be cause for further testing and investigation.)
2) The blood was in small quantity as to be missed by him.
3) The blood did actually require a more active search or testing/luminol to become obvious, and wasn't actually visible and obvious as the wording suggests.

Any other thoughts or information about this line of thinking? Thanks!

wish we knew what kind of flooring they had...carpet, tiles, wood? i have laminate flooring, thankfully-because with young kids-paints, markers, crushed crayons, playdoh would be nightmare on any carpet to clean up.

You know what? I missed this entirely! It had not dawned on me that the blood was reported by cops the day of the 911 call. Is that correct? Was this fact filed in the report and reported the *day of* the incident? Or did the cops go back and add that fact later after tests were done on the floor on a different day? I'm hazy on that.

But if the cops found and reported that very day -- then yes .... what the hell??? How come Sergio or any other family member did not see this? Was it perhaps only picked up by luminol?

Honeysage wrote:

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:yet Sergio will be making his 2nd court appearance on Monday for freaking dog licenses/vaccinations...rather than just pleading guilty and paying a fine but he won't go to court for his sons??? his daughter is missing and he hasn't been able to have contact with the boys for what-3 weeks now? what could they possibly be holding over him...

Why would he go to court for something he voluntarily agreed to? He agreed with the CPS order. That sort of indicates that apparently he feels he did something or contributed to something that would be prudent not to argue, whereas somehow he feels the contrary wtih his dogs.

but how long can a temporary agreement go on for? he is their father and has rights...he has not been arrested, or named POI. we have not been made aware of any rehab or therapy he may be undergoing...so what did he do/not do to make him more of a danger to be with his sons than not? and i understand we many never know since it's CPS and are dealing with privacy of minors-and i respect that-the boys must be going through an awfully confusing time. i just want things to move faster-i'm tired of this black hole that children and women seem to be falling through. following too many missing cases-i think i need a break.

so what did he do/not do to make him more of a danger to be with his sons than not?
[enter dramatic theatre music here] DUN DUN DUNNNNNN!!!!

Exactly.

Stolat wrote:

Honeysage wrote:

Ellie Tza wrote:I've been a vocal defender of Sergio... more accurately a strong defender of "innocent until proven guilty." And I do still stand by that! But I have a question in my head that I can't get out, in light of the recent documents. I have not read the documents myself, so I submit this question for other points of view and further explanation.

If I understand correctly, the documents reveal that the room where Isabel was put to bed the night before she went missing, contained "apparent blood" on the floor at the time of the initial police search. Is that correct? Is there any more detail provided about that blood, quantity, where it was located, if fresh/old, etc.? If the blood is "apparent", then I assume that means it was visible and would have been obvious to anyone who went into that room, is this correct? Is "apparent" a specific term in police work (for instance, does that mean visible to the naked eye without luminol or additional tests?)

If unequivocally yes that the blood was visible and anyone would have seen it, then that puts Sergio's 911 call in an entirely different light, for me. My question is this: How in the hell was Sergio calm, emotionless and glib on his 911 call, IF HE HAD JUST SEEN BLOOD IN THE FLOOR OF HIS MISSING DAUGHTER'S ROOM?

I can't seem to get past this. I'm genuinely asking for some insight on how this can fit with an innocent Sergio. I don't normally like to guess, but if I don't personally maintain a belief in the POSSIBILITY of Sergio's innocence, then I will feel like I've lost my objectivity about the case.

The only answers I can come up with that don't flag him as guilty are:
1) The blood was from another source (or at another time), he already knew about it before she went missing, and thus it was not a cause for concern regarding Isabel. (Of course, in this case, the blood would still alert the police and be cause for further testing and investigation.)
2) The blood was in small quantity as to be missed by him.
3) The blood did actually require a more active search or testing/luminol to become obvious, and wasn't actually visible and obvious as the wording suggests.

Any other thoughts or information about this line of thinking? Thanks!

wish we knew what kind of flooring they had...carpet, tiles, wood? i have laminate flooring, thankfully-because with young kids-paints, markers, crushed crayons, playdoh would be nightmare on any carpet to clean up.

You know what? I missed this entirely! It had not dawned on me that the blood was reported by cops the day of the 911 call. Is that correct? Was this fact filed in the report and reported the *day of* the incident? Or did the cops go back and add that fact later after tests were done on the floor on a different day? I'm hazy on that.

But if the cops found and reported that very day -- then yes .... what the hell??? How come Sergio or any other family member did not see this? Was it perhaps only picked up by luminol?

If it was picked up by luminal then don't we have a clean up situation?