I never understood the suspicion about Diena given the facts as known and given how LE was treating her. Similarly, I didn't understand why Ed Smart was given so much grief given the known facts and LE reaction. As with many other cases where the parents were suspected online but treated by all accounts as victims by LE.
While I look at the known facts in these cases, I tend to follow LE's lead while also watching how LE conducts the investigation. In the ones I listed above and in this one, LE seems to be open to all avenues. They don't seem to have 'tunnel vision' (I term I tend to loathe, as it is brought up in some cases MONTHS after LE exhausts multiple channels to focus on one path). And in this case, LE, in recent days, despite the multiple paths they have exhaustively looked into...seem to be putting pressure on SC. That, coupled with his very odd 911 call, leads me to believe they suspect he played a direct part in whatever happened to Isabel.
However, it could be that the 911 call and the CPS/no contact stuff are both connected to a 'habit' that has nothing to do with Isabel and that other 'clues' by LE (the searches in the wash right by the baseball field) have to do with things unrelated to SC.
But I follow LE, and despite their 'don't take this to be related' protestations in regards to the CPS deal, their actions (releasing the 911 calls right after, the search in the wash) tell me something different.
My opinion could change tomorrow, depending on what LE does. All of this is simply that, my opinion, and I continue to hope in this case that LE is competent and doing a good job for Isabel...and despite my own opinions, I am always interested in what others have to say, as it makes me think and question and reason, which is a good thing.
Logical, intelligent post. Thank you.
I would put any type of Cartel at 100-1
An RSO or unregistered SO at 10-1
A sometime workman at the Celis' house at 10-1
A young male neighbor at 5-1
Accident at 50-1
JMO
By accident, do you mean accident in the course of abuse? Because it is not that easy to unintentionally kill a child that age via negligence, at least when compared with a baby or toddler. Kids that age don't get rolled over on during the night, or drink tons of drain cleaner, or fall of a changing table, etc., ya' know?
I have been reading this forum for along time now. You all have great ideas on this case. This is my scenario. I have read a lot about this case and watched a lot of news and read in a lot of other forums and trying to put things together, this is my opinion.
#1. I think this has to do with drugs and the cartel, or any other drug ring that is linked to this family, on another forum somebody posted SC criminal background and on that it had "proof of income" so that raised a red flag, I am sure he was some kind of dealer.
#2. On another thread somebody close to the family said SC was talking to somebody at the game the night before and heard him say " he is going to get his", who would he be talking about? Maybe somebody threating him to pay up.
#3. I think his 911 was weird but maybe he didn't want to bring attention to this situation and thought they would bring her back.
#4. I think cps jumped in cause his family was in danger,the drug cartel is not a world to get involved with. And if your father is involved in any drug ring you should have your kids taken away.
#5. Even if he failed a polygraph which we don't know yet, it might be cause he failed to keep his family safe. He is guilty,guilty, guilty.
I really don't think SC just decides one night to rape, molest, and kill his daughter. I have 4 kids 3 boys and 1 girl and my husband said " what would be the worst thing somebody could do to me?" take my daughter!! Not saying that if our boys were abducted he wouldn't be sad, or hurt but " daddy's protect their daughters." The drug cartels are not dumb. You take what's closest to you.
That's my first scenario. My second is UNCLE JUSTIN!! To many red flags with him.
But authorities say taking a child is rare!! Really? Thats all we ever hear about.. It happens all the time. People are getting crazier and crazier all the time. Think about all the stuff we don't hear about state to state, country to country.
:fireworks::welcome::fireworks:
About the proof of income thing. That is common. The actual term on the docket is "failure to provide evidence of financial responsibility". That simply means he was uninsured and thus cannot show that he has the financial ability to cover injuries or damages to another person or vehicle he may be involved in an accident with. That's all that means.
Sergio's criminal history is mostly just driving violations. Nothing too major. He did get a DUI but the "drugs,vapors" thing doesn't mean he was guilty of all. It is just a general label that means he was pulled over and assessed by LE to be under the influence of alcohol, OR drugs, OR some kind of "huffing" substance like glue or whatever.
His DUI charge was dismissed which some think indicates something sinister. It doesn't. My law partner does hundreds of DUI cases each year. He gets loads of them dismissed. It can be easy to do, depending on the circumstances. (Blood alcohol levels being on the margin, timing of test, etc.).
I have no issues with the cartel angle, it just happened to be one of the comments she made. I think it's a perfectly reasonable theory, and I don't even have a local point-of-view.
- It just bothers me that so many are treating the statements about the dogs and male voices as gospel. It may ABSOLUTELY be true, but with a healthy dose of skepticism, I'd like to hear from someone else too. It just seems unlikely that she'd be the only one to hear the dogs if they were putting up the fuss she said they were. I have 2 dogs that live next to me that are barkers, but I can tell their different types of barking and know when to check on them.
I haven't seen where LE said anything about the voices or the barking, but I definitely could have missed - I need a race car to keep up with these threads - lol.
I have no reason to think the neighbor is lying. But, she could be mistaken or what she observed meant little. She could be off on the time, as she was asleep when awakened by the noise and could have been groggy. Or, it could simply have been laborers in the alley.
I think Isa was gone before her mom woke up. I think Isa was taken from that house before then. The neighbor's info is important but may not be relevant. :moo:
It's been hugely unpopular to post this, and I have received a smackdown for even suggesting it, but to me, it is far more likely that this was an inside job engineered as some sort of way to make money rather than an outside cartel abduction.
I'll repeat what was reported weeks ago: LE was interviewing the kids' friends to see what they might have been discussing in the week before Isa went missing. I thought that was interesting and potentially significant.
I think that's standard practice. they want to know, did the child make any statements about someone bothering her? Did she make any weird statements about going on a trip? Did she or any of her friends notice someone staring or following? I don't see anything but standard practice in regards to that.
My first post, bear with me.
In keeping with theories related to criminal associations (cartels and/or F&F), could SC's 911 call demeanor be attributed to the possibility that Isabel's "abduction" was arranged with the knowledge of SC to provide protection for Isabel and not for financial gain? RC's initial distress heard in her 911 conversation on 4/21/12 was significantly tempered when she appeared publicly during the couple's first (and subsequent) press conferences. IMO, information revealing greater details about Isabel's disappearance may have been shared with RC.
Simply, my opinion.
:fireworks2::welcome4::fireworks2: