AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #24

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
white rabbit said:
could a lawyer (preferably from arizona) chime in here so we know what we're talking about? i sure don't. lol.

http://arizonalawcenter.com/offenses/search-warrant.html

"A search warrant is usually sought when the police suspect someone of a crime and want to search their property, their workplace, their vehicles or some other place where they can legally store information and keep it from others."

now, we know they had warrants for the celis home, RR's truck, and the neighbor (i forgot what street it was on) where the dogs scent-tracked.

so what is in these warrants that the TPD does not want us to see? i agree forensic results won't be included...so we have two childrens' bedrooms, an uncle's truck, and a neighbor. which of the above is so "sensitive" that they don't want us to know what they were looking for?
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney -but here is an example of a Maricopa County search warrant-so that you get an idea of what may have been included in the search warrants of the Celis home.

It has been my experience -(which is limited) that when an officer needs a search warrant, they have to appear or contact by phone a judge (or similar) and explain why they need the search warrant and have probable cause that a crime has been committed there.
I think the most important thing to know about a search warrant is that in that warrant the things they are looking for must be listed specifically. The warrant should be served during daylight hours and it is time sensitive.

http://www.childbrides.org/ArizonaSearchWarrantAffidavit2.pdf
 
iSleuth said:
Warrants may not contain forensics but they have to be very specific as to which probable causes or evidence presented previously would give them specific next step warrants based on the findings/theories. So I am pretty sure we (public) would be able to infer ( possibly erroneously too!) a lot from the wording especially in the later warrants.

But...I bet some of what they are withholding is areas searched in response to k9 ( cadaverine) responses to evidence collected.


:pcguru:

Was the truck in RR's driveway JM's??
Click to expand...

The police would have to have probable cause to believet hat Isabel was in that truck, or the truck was used to take her away. imo-
 
white rabbit said:
could a lawyer (preferably from arizona) chime in here so we know what we're talking about? i sure don't. lol.

http://arizonalawcenter.com/offenses/search-warrant.html

"A search warrant is usually sought when the police suspect someone of a crime and want to search their property, their workplace, their vehicles or some other place where they can legally store information and keep it from others."

now, we know they had warrants for the celis home, RR's truck, and the neighbor (i forgot what street it was on) where the dogs scent-tracked.

so what is in these warrants that the TPD does not want us to see? i agree forensic results won't be included...so we have two childrens' bedrooms, an uncle's truck, and a neighbor. which of the above is so "sensitive" that they don't want us to know what they were looking for?
Click to expand...

It is usually SOP to request a warrant for the family home anytime a child is reported missing and it could have been very general in wording. Most judges would sign such a request without hesitation due to the fact that so many missing/murdered children end up being family-related. However, I disagree that LE has to suspect someone in particular. They execute these searches many times in order to rule out family members or to determine if something happened to the child iniside the home and sometimes these searches result in more clues or leads... sometimes not. They do not have to have a particular suspect in mind to request a SW, but they do need probable cause. The fact that the child went missing from the home is sufficient cause for the search of the family home. The request for the search on the uncle's truck was probably due to an officer seeing something inside the truck. The neighbor's property I think was because of the hit from the dog.
As for what they were looking for, I would think that would be obvious.
The content of the SW's, however, are not proof of anything. Just because they looked for evidence does not mean they found it. The point is, they do not have to inform the public of what they looked for, what they found, or what it means to the investigation.
 
There were warrants served on at least three homes. They were served on the Celis home, the home behind the Celis home, and the home down the street belonging to NMD. I do think there were more warrants, but I don't know which homes.

The truck was not JMs. It belonged to the uncle, not the cousin. JM is a cousin, and JM has a Jeep.
 
Well, one thing I think would be in the warrants - the reason they gave to get a warrant to search the storage unit that they searched. I sure would like to know that one...
 
white rabbit said:
i'm re-reading this article and a comment i found interesting...

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/18306084/finding-isabel-the-untold-investigation

"The reality of the situation is that we still could go a couple of different ways with this investigation," Villasenor said.
Investigators are narrowing everything down to a couple of working premises, Villasenor said."

how many different ways can you go with a stranger abduction? only one, IMO...which leads me to believe (however incorrectly it may be at this time) that they're looking at either one or multiple perps with one or multiple parties involved in a cover-up. which leads me to believe, unfortunately, the perp(s) lie within the immediate family...

JMO.
Click to expand...

IMO that quote does not really have much meaning out of context. In the article the reporter placed it right after reporting...
"But he did tell us his agency, the FBI and US Marshals have made significant progress over the last 20 days. "
I would then interpret his "couple different ways" to mean what LE has stated from the start ...
One way they are looking = internal
Another way they are looking = external

JMO
 
elmomom said:
Well, one thing I think would be in the warrants - the reason they gave to get a warrant to search the storage unit that they searched. I sure would like to know that one...
Click to expand...

I would agree that this might be important. I would like to know who rented this storage unit.
 
Now I just wish they would find her and maybe get some more clues from that. So frustrating.
 
SmoothOperator said:
Makes no sense as far as it being just evidence on the family.. number one, the family knows what evidence was found with them guilty of the crime(they committed it..its their home)..number two, certainly the public is aware that the supposed focus is solely on this family and seemingly no where else..

It seems to me atleast in theory that the evidence could very likely show involvement of another party that LE desperately wish to keep in the frame of mind that they are not suspected and no evidence leading anywhere except for family.. IMO for obvious strategic reasons that would make sense..

With not knowing it of course could go either way but IMO it strictly being evidence of family guilt wouldn't make sense for the above reasons and the obvious desperate need LE feel to keep the evidence unknown still.. jmo nothing more..
Click to expand...


I definitely think that could be one reason.
 
TxLady2 said:
It is usually SOP to request a warrant for the family home anytime a child is reported missing and it could have been very general in wording. Most judges would sign such a request without hesitation due to the fact that so many missing/murdered children end up being family-related. However, I disagree that LE has to suspect someone in particular. They execute these searches many times in order to rule out family members or to determine if something happened to the child iniside the home and sometimes these searches result in more clues or leads... sometimes not. They do not have to have a particular suspect in mind to request a SW, but they do need probable cause. The fact that the child went missing from the home is sufficient cause for the search of the family home. The request for the search on the uncle's truck was probably due to an officer seeing something inside the truck. The neighbor's property I think was because of the hit from the dog.
As for what they were looking for, I would think that would be obvious.
The content of the SW's, however, are not proof of anything. Just because they looked for evidence does not mean they found it. The point is, they do not have to inform the public of what they looked for, what they found, or what it means to the investigation.
Click to expand...

Not strictly true.

As we have already seen, LE has supplied 550 pages of detail in regards to this investigation.

The reason for this is because they HAD to, under FOI.

The only way for LE to suppress information is to request that suppression in a court of law. ONLY THEN can it be withheld.

A judge had to hear the case for suppression, and find it compelling enough to grant that suppression...otherwise LE do indeed, have to inform the public of what is requested of them.
 
Just curious: why do folks keep bumping a thread that is already on the first page of missing kids?
 
I bump because I see Isa's name falling towards the middle of the page. You look for news to keep her case in the publics eye & when there isn't anything well...

By tomorrow morning with nothing happening in Isa's thread she might be on page two. Sadly, too many cases after that point are so quiet & it could be just months to finding her or the truth or it could be years.

Communication & social media need to keep her case out there. Frankly, I'm not done reading everyone's posts just yet either.

xoxo

So yeah, I'll bump Isa's thread.
 
Is it possible warrants were served that we don't know about?
 
Dr. Know? said:
Yelp. Maybe other clues as to the direction of the investigation.
Click to expand...

They are only going to release info that won't compromise the case, they have said as much. They must have gotten warrants for phones, emails, bank accounts, etc. No way were only three warrants served. I'm still catching up so sorry if this was already discussed.
 
Shelby2 said:
They are only going to release info that won't compromise the case, they have said as much. They must have gotten warrants for phones, emails, bank accounts, etc. No way were only three warrants served. I'm still catching up so sorry if this was already discussed.
Click to expand...

Yep and I agree. No matter how many times LE says they are not going to do anything to compromise their investigation, they are not believed, for some reason. Anything they can keep from the public helps them; they have to think ahead and down the road they don't want to be accused of poisoning a potential jury pool with information that was released when it didn't have to be. It's a fine line to balance. Release some things to follow the law, but preserve their case and keep the investigation as pure as possible.
 
Remember Sierra Lemar and how quiet the media was before the arrest.
The bumping doesn't bother me, just shows people are thinking of her.
I DO wish LE would give another PC. But I also think they are getting their ducks
In a row before they make an arrest. They know the perp watches everything they say.
Perhaps they are trying to keep quiet on purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 231 more.
Total: 4,219 (members: 232, guests: 3,987)

Online statistics

Members online
232
Guests online
3,987
Total visitors
4,219
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,150
Messages
17,964,262
Members
228,703
Latest member
Megankd
Back
Top