AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #23

[TxLady2]

Any comparison of this case to Sierra's is unjustified, IMO. In Sierra's case, LE stated, over and over, that Sierra's mom, her boyfriend and her dad were cleared.

In this case, LE have stated, over and over, that the Celis' have not been cleared.

That statement you just made is based on invalid data.

Respectfully, it could be the difference in the LE departments. Some LE do not ever come out and say the parents are cleared, some will announce it early on. Some of them will name suspects, some will not. Actually it all depends on who is running the operation.

Not trying to argue with you but no two LE agencies are the same and they sure don't handle cases the same way.

 

[Azcrabcakes]

Exactly. Plenty of Mexicans in Mexico. Plenty of street kids there for the pickin'. That sounds rude of me, but that's how it is.

Agreed, BUT... While I DO think it is not highly likely Isa is in Mexico, think about it. IF there was an accidental death, be it from a family member, or a stranger, hiding the remains in Mexico would make it harder for them to be found. In thinking if she was taken across the border, I always thought it would be to dispose of remains. With a huge expanse of desert and undeveloped terrain, lakes, rivers, remains would be MUCH harder to find. Mexican search teams do not have the equipment, and far fewer financial resources than here.

It's around an hour from Tucson to Nogales... she and the abductor could be in Mexico before anyone knew she was gone. Like everyone, I don't know what happened - I'm just saying it would be a simple task to secrete Isa over the border.

It's true, there are lots of kids out there. Why single out Isa? How does any abductor pick a victim? Someone could have seen her and "requested" her. Going over the border just makes it easier to hide a kidnapped child, or dispose of remains.

I pray none of that has happened, I'm just saying.

 

[TxLady2]

Not sure that is exactly what they say . But, my point was also I don't have an opinion yet as to guilt or innocence or who did it, because I have seen no facts to sway me one way or the other. And like most everyone here that is what I am waiting on. ty

Me, too. I've been on that fence so long, the top rail is bowed.

 

[Knox]

As far as I know, it was the Department of Corrections K-9 Unit who had a hit on the house on Cooper. This report does not state what scent specifically they were tracking. I suppose they could have been tracking the scent sample taken from the window, or they could have been tracking Isa's scent. I am not sure we can say either way. Whatever the scent, we do know they served a warrant on the house.
This is all stated in the first two sentences of the above report.
http://i48.tinypic.com/125jma0.jpg

I think that in order to conclude that the dog tracked the scent to the Cooper home, we have to make a couple assumptions.

1. As far as the scent sample taken from the window, we have to assume that is a foreign scent, and not a family scent. This seems a safe assumption. IMO There would be no need to take a sample from the window of a family scent. The scent sample is to use for tracking.

2. We would have to assume that the foreign scent sample was given to the DOC K-9 units to track.

Correct?
I may have missed a report, though.

DOC K-9 and the dogs brought in by the FBI were at the home (scene) on different days, correct? I thought the DOC dogs tracked ISA's scent to the home on Cooper.

My point is, the info in Ocean's post may be erroneous. I read most of the doc dump and did not put the info together that way. If, the scent pad did lead the dogs to the home on Cooper, or even just to that general vicinity; it leads me to consider new options on what happened to Isa.

 

[TxLady2]

Here is my point....

People are adding complexity to the motive.

1. Stranger abduction
2. Take over border

So, in "stranger abductions" think about other cases. Neighbors, former handyman, people with limited opportunity (Shawn Hornbeck), etc. Usually the motive is sexual assault, etc.

So, now we are taking it to another level of complexity. Stranger abduction PLUS taking her over the border.

Why would a stranger take her over the border? What is the motive?

To me it is no longer a sexual assault case...if it isn't sexual assault, are they kidnapping her to put her into illegal sexual trade?

So then my question is, if THAT is the motive, why target a kid that lives in the house with a giant wall, dogs, and multiple family members at home...with neighbors that are so close they can see inside your house from their window. Why not target the MUCH more higher risk children than one sleeping inside the house.

I can buy stranger abduction. But I can't buy stranger abduction to take her over the border.

But I'm still firmly in the camp of (FDI) family did it at this point.

Oh, I see, thanks for expounding. Apologies for being dense, things have to be sort of laid out for me... I'm old.

I don't know what the motive would be for a stranger taking her over the border, other than just to hide her for some reason. But without some indication that is where she is, I am not even going to think too much on that one. I do know that there have been kids taken by strangers from their own homes or yards, and predators do take risks, some of them may even think that's half the fun.

As for the high wall, there is a gate that was probably not locked. The dogs could be quieted with some treats or piece of raw meat. If it was in the wee hours of the morning, one would assume the neighbors would be asleep.
In a predator's mind, obstacles can be dealt with, if they were afraid of risks they wouldn't be doing these things anyway.

 

[Whisperer]

I thought Becky stated the door were locked. I believe she was referring to the front gate but will have to look it up. If that front gate was locked, the story is even more bizarre.

I would think they would make sure that door was locked due to the dogs possibly getting loose.

 

[makayla]

I am wrong; didn't (very) recently LE say they have been able to rule out "some" family members? Of course they didn't specify, but I wondered which family members. Anyone remember the context & quote to that one. I am tied up now, but if nobody is able to find it, I will search later.

I believe I also heard that "some" family members had been ruled out, but I couldn't tell you where I heard or read it. :blushing:

 

[Whisperer]

The point of entry and exit needs to be established. These are clearly lacking in this case. Till the immediate family is ruled out, there is no way to move on.

 

[kat77]

As far as I know, it was the Department of Corrections K-9 Unit who had a hit on the house on Cooper. This report does not state what scent specifically they were tracking. I suppose they could have been tracking the scent sample taken from the window, or they could have been tracking Isa's scent. I am not sure we can say either way. Whatever the scent, we do know they served a warrant on the house.
This is all stated in the first two sentences of the above report.
http://i48.tinypic.com/125jma0.jpg

I think that in order to conclude that the dog tracked the scent to the Cooper home, we have to make a couple assumptions.

1. As far as the scent sample taken from the window, we have to assume that is a foreign scent, and not a family scent. This seems a safe assumption. IMO There would be no need to take a sample from the window of a family scent. The scent sample is to use for tracking.

2. We would have to assume that the foreign scent sample was given to the DOC K-9 units to track.

Correct?
I may have missed a report, though.

I just reread packet 5 page 59. I thought this scent sample was part of the normal evidence collection process. They collected and bottled a scent sample from the exterior of the window. IMO, a field tech would not have a way to know if this was a foreign scent or family scent at the time of the sample collection.

Maybe there is further information about the results on that sample. but I haven't found it yet.

 

[MBK]

I thought Becky stated the door were locked. I believe she was referring to the front gate but will have to look it up. If that front gate was locked, the story is even more bizarre.

I would think they would make sure that door was locked due to the dogs possibly getting loose.

You would *think* so, but this lack of care and supervision of the dogs seems habitual. (Of course, even if all the doors to the house were left wide open, that doesn't mean a stranger came in and abducted Isabel.) I don't trust Becky's statement, just like I don't trust her versions of when she left the house to go to work.

 

[TxLady2]

But there are very many cases where nobody is charged, like Kyron, Joshua Davis, Ayla, Hailey Dunn, Haleigh Cummings, Lisa Irwin, Celina Cass. And in many of these cases, the prime suspects are the parents. imo

In some of the cases where no one has been charged, I think a few of them are because LE zoomed in on who they thought was guilty and barely looked at other possibilities. And that caused them to lose valuable time in finding the real perp. A lot of them are because try as they might, they never found enough evidence against the parents to bring a case against them, and in a few such cases, the reason is because they had nothing to do with it.
I'm speaking of other cases besides the ones you listed, just to be clear.
I don't know who disappeared Isa, but sitting here comparing case after case with this one is pointless, IMO. No two cases are alike and just because a parent or stepparent (or boy/girlfriend) may have been guilty in some cases, doesn't mean it's true in every case. Strangers have abducted children and while it's more rare, it does happen. No one should dismiss that possibility just because of statistics.

 

[MBK]

I don't know who disappeared Isa, but sitting here comparing case after case with this one is pointless, IMO. No two cases are alike and just because a parent or stepparent (or boy/girlfriend) may have been guilty in some cases, doesn't mean it's true in every case. Strangers have abducted children and while it's more rare, it does happen. No one should dismiss that possibility just because of statistics.

Well, now, that's true, but just when I'm thinking that SC oughta be turned into a "soprano" (if you get my drift), I remember Good Old Dave who snuck in Danielle Van Dam's house and abducted her without leaving a trace. . . and so I think that comparisons can sometimes be quite valid or act as points to that get us to question our assumptions and lead us to consider other possibilities.

 

[Prof]

I just reread packet 5 page 59. I thought this scent sample was part of the normal evidence collection process. They collected and bottled a scent sample from the exterior of the window. IMO, a field tech would not have a way to know if this was a foreign scent or family scent at the time of the sample collection.

Maybe there is further information about the results on that sample. but I haven't found it yet.

We do not have any results.
These are simply reports.
Everything is a guess on this thread.
I was helping out Knox in my post.

I think that collecting a scent sample as "normal evidence collection process" is yet another assumption,

but I certainly have no interest in agreeing with or arguing against posts that want to interpret these reports in a way that fit any theory.

I don't know if it is normal procedure or not, and the forensic officer N. was specifically instructed by another officer to take this scent sample. N went out of his way to report he was instructed to do this.

I would not pretend to know anything about a complex science like forensics, or how any LE go about procedures for a missing child.

I stated in my post what I thought were assumptions.



A forensic officer by the name of N. took evidence of possible DNA from possible bodily fluids on the screen that collected fingerprint dust, but did not produce fingerprints. The forensic officer N. took two fingerprints from the window sill. The SGT B. then asked the forensic officer N. to gather a scent sample. I personally would feel safe in making the assumption that this could be in hopes to capture a foreign scent, as there would be no need to capture a known scent.

The key to all of this is we do not know.
The reports are just reports.
The only "results" I have seen are the fake tip results...such as SC owing his employers money and such.

 

[Prof]

DOC K-9 and the dogs brought in by the FBI were at the home (scene) on different days, correct? I thought the DOC dogs tracked ISA's scent to the home on Cooper.

My point is, the info in Ocean's post may be erroneous. I read most of the doc dump and did not put the info together that way. If, the scent pad did lead the dogs to the home on Cooper, or even just to that general vicinity; it leads me to consider new options on what happened to Isa.

I believe the FBI dogs came a day or two later.
The report does not say what scent was tracked to the house on Cooper.
The report in PDF 3 page 66 says that a DOC K9 alerted on that house on Cooper, and that was on 4/21.
I don't think we can know what the dog alerted on.
We cannot know what the FBI dogs or the DOC dogs did with the scent sample taken from the window. We cannot know if they did anything with the scent sample, but since they brought in a foreign scent dog, I would assume that LE did use the sample. They might have tested the FBI foreign scent dog on the Cooper St. home in another report. We don't have all of the reports, there are limitless possibilities, so who knows?

 

[Ransom]

Any comparison of this case to Sierra's is unjustified, IMO. In Sierra's case, LE stated, over and over, that Sierra's mom, her boyfriend and her dad were cleared.

In this case, LE have stated, over and over, that the Celis' have not been cleared.

That statement you just made is based on invalid data.

Not true. The Sheriff (Laurie Smith) stated on the NG that NO ONE was cleared.

 

[katydid23]

In some of the cases where no one has been charged, I think a few of them are because LE zoomed in on who they thought was guilty and barely looked at other possibilities. And that caused them to lose valuable time in finding the real perp. A lot of them are because try as they might, they never found enough evidence against the parents to bring a case against them, and in a few such cases, the reason is because they had nothing to do with it.
I'm speaking of other cases besides the ones you listed, just to be clear.
I don't know who disappeared Isa, but sitting here comparing case after case with this one is pointless, IMO. No two cases are alike and just because a parent or stepparent (or boy/girlfriend) may have been guilty in some cases, doesn't mean it's true in every case. Strangers have abducted children and while it's more rare, it does happen. No one should dismiss that possibility just because of statistics.

I agree. It is hard to compare cases because they are so complex and intricate. My point was only in response to a comment that seemed to imply that it is rarely a parent that is the guilty party. And i wanted to give some examples in which the parents MIGHT be the perps/

 

[Lava]

Not true. The Sheriff (Laurie Smith) stated on the NG that NO ONE was cleared.

Sierra's parents were cleared by April 4th.

 

[Ransom]

Sierra's parents were cleared by April 4th.

Nope. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1sc-5O52pUI

Mark 2:48

4-6-2012 ... NG show on HLN.

ETA: Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but the FACTS were in SL case that Marlene Lamar and her live-in, Rick, were NOT cleared by the Sheriff Laurie Smith (see above video).

 

[oceanblueeyes]

BBM-

Prof very patiently explained to me, even mapped the location of the home on Cooper, which you refer to. It is the house directly across the alley from the Celis home.

I read that a scent pad was collected from Isa's bedroom window. I read that the dog(s) tracked a scent to the home on Cooper, a search warrant was obtained and the home was searched.

What I don't remember reading is that the scent pad was what lead LE/Dogs to that home? Can you point me to where this is said?

Im sorry Knox, I may be mistaken, but since they took a scent sample from the window sill I 'assumed' (I know.. I know) it was done so they could track the scent found there on the sill and the scent ended over at the home on Cooper. Iirc, they even came back to Isa's home in order to make sure the dog wasnt picking the scent up of the officers that were there.

I mean why take a scent sample if they werent going to have the dog track that scent?

Sorry if I misspoke. That was just what I gathered from reading the doc dumps.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Nope. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1sc-5O52pUI

Mark 2:48

4-6-2012

I know you remember how Sheriff Smith's statement spread like wildfire on Sierra's thread? I sure do. When Sheriff Smith said no one had been ruled out .......it created many pages of discussion on that one statement alone.

ETA: I think back on her statement now and it was as if she wanted the real suspect to believe they were still investigating the parents/boyfriend when all along they had the real suspect in their sights. Hmmmm.