AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #15

[Prof]

Yes, SC should not be the only suspect! It could have been the Cable Guy, the scorned lover, the dog catcher!
Seriously, though. I do agree.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think he's just reminding us to remember that SC should not be considered the only suspect right now..?

LE has made it clear that they have not ruled out anyone (including the family). That statement alone serves to remind us of their public stance. While LE has not publicly disclosed who they think is a suspect or not, and why, they have at least one (and it is likely SC).

 

[AZlawyer]

Originally posted by Knox
Glad you joined us, I've been thinking about asking you for your opinion on this case!

What do you make of the "voluntary-CPS arrangement"?

Just catching up, sorry if you have already spoken re; the above.

Hi, Knox. Sorry I didn't see this til now and had to move it over from the other thread.

A "voluntary" as we call it in the AZ foster care system is not unusual at all, and is often a good idea for the parents because during the term of the agreement (90 days normally) the time does not count toward the deadline for the parents to shape up or lose their kids.

That said, the usual reason for a "voluntary" is that CPS has visited the home and told the parents, "Look, you can sign a voluntary or we can take the kids. Your call." (Once in a while there are other reasons, like the parents have just become homeless and want their kids to be safe for 90 days while they get jobs and housing.)

 

[Shelby2]

This is the post with the transcript of the presser

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - AZ AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #14

Does anyone mind pointing out where LE stated SC needed space?

Note: I see posts stating SG... I assume they are typos? If not I am not sure who SG is.

If they were my posts they were typos, I keep catching myself typing "SG" instead of "SC". Sorry

 

[GutFeeling!]

I personally think the NCO issue that was worked out with CPS was as LE put it in the PC so SC could get some space as not to create a smothering effect on them and allow him to deal with things which need dealt with with LE, Job and to have a more active role in looking for his daughter without putting the boys through daily stress over the situation at hand. Get the boy's into a calm enviroment and allow them to get back to finishing the school year and get proper mental healthcare to cope with the situation they are dealing with. JMO

How is not seeing a parent calming for a child?

CPS don't play cop games, they protect children. The reasons for no contact don't have to be major either.

 

[winterrose]

Okay, so it was information LE had, they turned it over to CPS, they let him voluntarily remove himself from the boys, not RC. He can't have any contact with them, but he can with her, so the children are endangered, but not her. It sounds like if that agreement wasn't made, she wouldn't even have the boys. I'm assuming it was not an option.

 

[Shelby2]

LE has made it clear that they have not ruled out anyone (including the family). That statement alone serves to remind us of their public stance. While LE has not publicly disclosed who they think is a suspect or not, and why, they have at least one (and it is likely SC).

Well perhaps JohnQPublic wanted to make a statement since we all have been talking about SC, I don't know, I was just trying to explain, jeez..

 

[Shelby2]

Hi, Knox. Sorry I didn't see this til now and had to move it over from the other thread.

A "voluntary" as we call it in the AZ foster care system is not unusual at all, and is often a good idea for the parents because during the term of the agreement (90 days normally) the time does not count toward the deadline for the parents to shape up or lose their kids.

That said, the usual reason for a "voluntary" is that CPS has visited the home and told the parents, "Look, you can sign a voluntary or we can take the kids. Your call." (Once in a while there are other reasons, like the parents have just become homeless and want their kids to be safe for 90 days while they get jobs and housing.)

So it's possible that SC will be denied contact for 90 days??

 

[GutFeeling!]

Ok NG on again

Joe Vega said at first he had to cancel his appearance because SG thought he and RC should speak publicly first.
All coaches, friends, support him

NG we should be on ISA'S side
JV. I am talking about the recent events and the two little boys and the finger pointing at SC.
NG why is he barred from contact
JV I don't know, all the parents, kids love him, I don't have info on why this happened, he said he could not give me details, I did not want to pry, he's already hurting.

Does anyone else read this with NG's snarly attitude voice? lol

 

[johnQpublic]

I'm 100% sure LE and the FBI would think of these types of things and would be asking for this information as part of a standard investigation. They're the professionals who do this for a living and are quite competent. We the public bystanders are not in the position to investigate and crack cases.

As to your questions...can't imagine anyone on this forum and unconnected to the case could know the answers.

You really think so... Simple trivial stuff like that doe's get overlooked and it's valid question to ask here because there are forum members in these threads who actually know the couple. It's a matter of looking for answers and questions in the effort to find someone that is important not so much as who to hang for the deed. Opinion's on SC's guilt or innocence needs to stop being the main focus and the scope of intel gathering is kinda important to prevent tunnel vision. Do we really need to know what fragrance SC's crap is in order to find Isa, NO we need to figure out things such as motive's, Time's, Alibi's, Behavior patterns and person's who could have known the home's layout... take the side blinders off and put SC on the back burner for just a second and pretend for a moment he was not even at all possibly even remotely capable of being involved... Even thought it's not only highly likely he was involved but it's hard to find a way to say he is not involved and that's what makes this case very very hard BUT one must try to ignore his involvement.

 

[AZlawyer]

So it's possible that SC will be denied contact for 90 days??

Most likely, that's what the voluntary agreement said, but it's voluntary so they can back out of it anytime. Of course, if they do, CPS will (probably) follow through on the thread they (probably) made to take the kids away on a non-voluntary basis.

 

[Shelby2]

Does anyone else read this with NG's snarly attitude voice? lol

Oh let me tell you she is EXTRA snarly tonight.

 

[Shelby2]

Most likely, that's what the voluntary agreement said, but it's voluntary so they can back out of it anytime. Of course, if they do, CPS will (probably) follow through on the thread they (probably) made to take the kids away on a non-voluntary basis.

Thank you. This is really surprising to me, 90 days. August. Wow.

 

[Pensfan]

'Kay...Wonder why he isn't allowed to even call them though ? JMO

IMO, any or all of these could be reasons. #5 might is a very likely reason why he can't call his boys.
http://www.wcadv.org/sites/default/files/resources/DV_and_Parenting.pdf

 

[Pensfan]

So it's possible that SC will be denied contact for 90 days??

Instead of agreeing to CPS's safety plan, he can refuse to sign CPS's plan and demand to go before a judge to have CPS's "evidence" reviewed. His court date will likely not be for many weeks and perhaps months, though.

Read the paragraph about coercion. If you sign CPS's safety plan, you have admitted that you are guilty of child abuse or neglect. If you are not guilty, don't sign it. Make CPS take you in front of a judge and prove their case.
http://fightcps.com/2010/04/09/what...ervices-social-workers-are-investigating-you/


Pensfan
verified psychiatric mental health nurse

 

[GutFeeling!]

You really think so... Simple trivial stuff like that doe's get overlooked and it's valid question to ask here because there are forum members in these threads who actually know the couple. It's a matter of looking for answers and questions in the effort to find someone that is important not so much as who to hang for the deed. Opinion's on SC's guilt or innocence needs to stop being the main focus and the scope of intel gathering is kinda important to prevent tunnel vision. Do we really need to know what fragrance SC's crap is in order to find Isa, NO we need to figure out things such as motive's, Time's, Alibi's, Behavior patterns and person's who could have known the home's layout... take the side blinders off and put SC on the back burner for just a second and pretend for a moment he was not even at all possibly even remotely capable of being involved... Even thought it's not only highly likely he was involved but it's hard to find a way to say he is not involved and that's what makes this case very very hard BUT one must try to ignore his involvement.

With all due respect I believe the police would have done all this, it is a given in every investigation, also most innocent people start remembering these things quickly, because being human we need to find out and lay blame.

Everyone is talking SC because of latest developments but if you look back to the last thread (maybe the one before) everyone is not pointing fingers at SC - I for one am not but I believe he has a gut feeling as to what happened. there are still quite a few sitting on the fence here (I am trying to push them off but some are stubborn)

Every discussion in these threads does this, we talk about it out loud, try and make every excuse as to why it isn't them and every reason to blame him until we get more information. Everyone has a right to change their mind lol

Everyone is a POI at this stage, no one MUST ignore his involvement, if he is involved at all. Until we get more information we weed through what we do have.




Great to see you AzLawyer xoxoxo

 

[soyesterday]

Here's another 2 cents worth of my opinion, 'cause I know you're all dying for it. Although I don't believe one can be crucified because of their demeanor on a 911 call, I do believe that one can be ruled out because of it.

I 100% believe that RC was as surprised, devastated, terrified and desperate as she sounded in her 911 conversation. I feel the same way about the brother. If someone in the home or known to the family took Isa, these two were NOT in on it. I would also bet a donut that they both passed ldts, as well.

The jury, in my mind, is still out on SC.

On that note, good night! :seeya:

I totally agree about Becky. OMG poor thing. I think she was sincere and so upset.
I didn't get to hear the brother. Was it the older one? What did he say?
Becky's 911 call was seperate from Sergio's right? Cuz she wasn't home yet right? Did she get home before the police ever got there?
Also, did i hear something about a guy and his son came over with something to say? Was it ever told what they had to say?

 

[Shelby2]

Instead of agreeing to CPS's safety plan, he can refuse to sign CPS's plan and demand to go before a judge to have CPS's "evidence" reviewed. His court date will likely not be for many weeks and perhaps months, though.

Would he need a lawyer for that?

 

[AZlawyer]

Instead of agreeing to CPS's safety plan, he can refuse to sign CPS's plan and demand to go before a judge to have CPS's "evidence" reviewed. His court date will likely not be for many weeks and perhaps months, though.

I think he did sign the plan, though, because at the press conference the officer said there was a voluntary agreement with CPS.

 

[AZlawyer]

Would he need a lawyer for that?

Unless he's an idiot. But if he signed the voluntary and sticks with it, he won't need a lawyer for approx. 90 days.

ETA: Well. Not for the CPS thing. But IMO he will need a lawyer for other reasons much sooner.