Statement Analysis concluded, last year:
1. Deception on part of both parents
2. Isabel is dead
3. Deception within the 911 call made by the father, Sergio Celis.
The avoidance of Isabel's name in certain context, the confusion of pronouns, the past tense references of her very early in the investigation, conspired with their refusal, initially, to speak out to the "kidnapper" and "negotiate" her safe return.
Then, there were the references to water we noted.
The family now has hired a private investigator.
We can save him time and help him locate the answers he seeks:
The parents appeared on the Today Show to talk about the "abduction" that Serio Celis had reported. Here is analysis from Statement Analyst Kaaryn Gough with additional notes of Behavioral Analysis and prior references.
Let's look at Kaaryn's detailed analysis from the perspective of Behavioral Analysis, and the prior short Statement Analysis of the few words spoken by the parents. Kaaryn's is posted again, with bold type analysis and commentary added.
TODAY SHOW INTERVIEW OF PARENTS OF ISABEL MERCEDES CELIS
MAY 4, 2012
ANN CURRY, SERGIO CELIS, BECKY CELIS
Statement Analysis is not evidence. It is an investigative tool that can gather information and help direct investigative efforts. A person is innocent until proven guilty in a recognized court of law.
The subjects, Sergio Celis and Becky Celis use the following language:
“taken”– 0 times
“kidnapped” – 0 times
“find” – 1 time
“We're desperate in finding out information.”
“look” – 3 times
“that little sleepy look as she was walking by.”
“And to whomever did this, please, look at her. Look at her.”
“search” – 0 times
*It should be noted that Becky Celis uses the present tense at all times when referring to Isabel. This strongly suggests she believes their daughter is alive.
Could it be that she is careful to attempt to only use present tense language? We consider the past tense usage a slip of the deceptive, when viewing guilty parents.
Let's take a look at this: they reported that Isabel was kidnapped by a stranger. This was reported by various media and was said to be strong assertions. This was their first national interview. What did you expect to hear? Likely, you expected to hear them talk about kidnapping. Kaaryn's analysis showed that they did not use the word "kidnapped" once, nor did they use the word "taken." This is important and it is very unexpected; that is, unless you have been following the analysis: they are deceptive.
Note next what would be considered to be the 2nd most used word after kidnapped: "find."
How is it possible that the parents of a 'kidnapped' child used the word "find" only once?
Alone, these two word counts are important, but when taken with the Statement Analysis of what has been said previously, it strongly suggests:
There was no kidnapping.
They believe Isabel is not to be found. The word "search" was not used.
How did they get through an interview on a kidnapping without using the word "kidnap", "taken", or "search"?
How can they avoid criticism after something like this?
- AC: Isabel's parents, Sergio and Becky , are now joining us exclusively this morning. Good morning to both of you.
- SC: Good morning.
- BC: Good morning.
- AC: This is our first chance to really get to know a little bit about your daughter, Isabel . What do you want to tell us, Becky , about your girl?
- BC: She is a girly girl. She loves to get her makeup on and paint her nails, do your nails, do my nails, do her hair. She loves to put , um-- she loves to go out and play with her brothers, um play hard in the dirt and then come back in and get herself all girled up again. And um, she's very caring. She– loving little girl who loves to come and give mom and dad hugs all the time, tell us we love her -- or that she loves us. A beautiful baby girl .
- “She is a girly girl”—not “Isa (or Isabel) is a girly girl”. It is expected and normal for a parent to use a child’s name. It is fair to ask you how you might answer this question. Parents are most at ease with their children's names: they are close to the child, they love the child, and they feel a strong connection. Something must take place in order to yield to distance. After John and Patsy Ramsey heard similar analysis on their interviews, they responded with making statements where they used Jonbenet's name directly. There are things about this case that remind me of the Ramsey case.
- “She loves to get her makeup on”—not “She loves to get makeup on” indicating that Isa enjoys this activity. “her” suggests Isa has her own makeup.
- “She loves to get her makeup on”—not “put”. “get” as in “get made up” suggests that someone else may have put the makeup on.
- “…and paint her nails, do your nails, do my nails,…”—note the order: she does 1) “her nails” first, 2) “your nails”, 3) “my nails”. The order suggests that the subject considers “your nails” to be more important than “my nails”. This is a subtle and seemingly small point but actually shows the brilliance of analysis as it gets into the relationship between mother and child, and highlights mother's thinking. For most, the child comes first; but not for all.
- “your nails”–– Three possibilities:
- “your” = Ann Curry
- “your” = undisclosed individual
- “your” = generalization and no one in particular
Note: It is highly unlikely that Isabel did Ann Curry’s nails leaving only two possibilities. The subject is addressing an undisclosed individual or is distancing herself by placing the general public between her daughter and herself.
Choosing a theory, distancing is what seems to me the most probable as it fits with the lack of use of Isabel's name.
Q: Other than the mother, did Isabel do anyone else’s nails?
- “…and paint her nails, do your nails, do my nails,…”—change of language from “paint” to “do”. The “do” is attached to “your nails” and “my nails”. Two possibilities:
- “do” means something different than “paint”. Perhaps Isabel painted her own nails but did something different to other’s nails. This would be a justified change in language.
- There is no difference between “paint” and “do” making this an unjustified changed in language and therefore, unreliable.
- “she loves to go out and play with her brothers”––not “she loves to play with her brothers”. “go out” suggests the play was outside, not inside. One should wonder if the ‘love’ is restricted only to ‘going out’ to play. In other words, she does not love to play with her brothers if it is inside or she does not play with her brothers inside.
Q: Did Isabel ever play with her brothers inside?
Q; If Isabel played with her brothers inside, what did they play?
- “She loves to put , um-- she loves to go out and play with her brothers”—the subject is about to say something but stops. Editing.
- This is something I wish to explore further and hopefully, through more statements, we will learn more about her activities with her brothers. Did she like to play with them in the house? Were they too rough for indoor play? Why is it that instead of loving to play with them she had to love to out and play with them? Did the 'girlie girl' not like rough play? I consider this because of what comes next: why the need to portray her as a 'girlie girl' but then, in a missing child case, is it so important to say that she played "hard" and she played "in the dirt"?
Q: What does Isabel love to “put”? The subject should be asked to elaborate.
- “she loves to go out and play with her brothers, um play hard in the dirt”—not “she loves to go out and play with her brothers.” or “She loves to go out and play hard in the dirt with her brothers” or “She loves to go out and play with her brothers in the dirt. The order of the subject’s language suggests the order of importance for the subject.
- “go out”
- “play with her brothers”
- “play hard in the dirt”
- “she loves to go out and play with her brothers, um play hard in the dirt”—The subject’s hesitation “um” suggests the subject needed time to consider her words. In effect, this separates the “loves to go out and play with her brother” from “play hard in the dirt”. The use of “play” twice suggests there may be two types of “play”.
- with her brothers
- hard in the dirt
Q: Is there someone else that played with Isabel and that play was “hard in the dirt”?
- “…play hard in the dirt…”––not simply “play in the dirt”. “hard” suggests the play may have been rough.
Q: What type of play was done in the dirt that was hard?
Q: Did the brothers play rough with Isabel?
Q: Were injuries ever sustained from the play? Here, Kaaryn brings to fruition the naturally arising questions. It is not just that she played "hard" and "outside" and in the "dirt" with her brothers: it is that the parent is saying these things, bringing the two boys into the topic, while Isabel is missing.
- “And um, she's very caring. She– loving little girl who loves to come and give mom and dad hugs all the time,” ––not “us”. Referencing in the third person. Distancing.
- AC: We can see from the videotape, just so full of life. And Sergio , I'm wondering, you know, we just saw from the videotape, you were asked to reenact the hours before Isabel disappeared. What do you remember about the last time you saw her, Sergio ?
- SC: Just that sweet little face. Just that sweet little face. She was–she had just gotten her hair done. It was just before she went to bed. She had a baseball game early in the next morning. And Becky braided her hair up. So she was going to be ready for her early morning . And I was asking her if she was hungry and she just had that little sleepy look as she was walking by. And she just said, "no, daddy. I'm tired." And she was just walking by. She is–she wa–she is so full of life, and she is just so wonderful. And we do miss her so much. And her brothers miss her so much. [Julie] even said he’ll love her so much. We just need everyone out there, everyone, just to keep praying for her. Keep your eyes out.
- Note, the question was “What do you remember about the last time you saw her, Sergio?”. The question is asking for what he remembers about the circumstances. The question was not “What do you remember about Isabel the last time you saw her…”. However, the subject chooses first to reply about Isabel’s appearance and not the circumstances.
- “just”—other options are present. Minimizes.
- “Just that sweet little face.”––“ not “her”. “that” speaks more to an object rather than a person. “that” distinguishes from others and demonstrates distance.
- “She was–she had just gotten her hair done”–– The subject begins to say something and then changes his mind. Editing.
Note: In this instance, the use of “was” is correct if the subject is describing something that happened in the past.
- “She was–she had just gotten her hair done”––passive language. The subject does not identify who did her hair. Hiding identity. Possibly deceptive and unreliable.
Note: Once should wonder if the sudden change in direction of the sentence (the edit point) has anything to do with hiding the identity of the person who had done Isabel’s hair.
- “She was–she had just gotten her hair done”––what constitutes “done”? The subject does not say. This is vague.
- “It was just before she went to bed”—“just” other options were present or minimizing.
- “It was just before she went to bed”—The question was about the last time the subject saw Isabel. This strongly suggests the subject did not see his daughter after she went to bed.
NOTE: It was reported that the father was the last one to see her and had checked on Isabel after she had gone to bed. This should be verified.
- “She had a baseball game early in the next morning.”—Explaining. The subject is outside the bounds of telling us “what happened” and is telling us “why” something happened making this important information for the subject. Sensitive.
- “And Becky braided her hair up”—The telling of a story should reflect the reality of how the subject experienced it. Here, the subject is telling us that at this point in the story, Becky braided her [Isabel’s] hair up. However, earlier the subject says “she had just gotten her hair done”. According to the subject’s words, Isabel had two things happen regarding her hair. First it was “done” then it was “braided up”. For example, if someone had brushed Isabel’s hair first and then Becky braided it, the telling and the order of the words would make sense.
- “And Becky braided her hair up. So she was going to be ready for her early morning .” “so” = explaining. Sensitive.
- “So she was going to be ready for her early morning.”—not “would”. At this point, the use of “would” is the correct tense when describing something that had been in the subject’s future in the past.
“was going” suggests an intention to do something but was interrupted. For example, “She was going to read me a story, when the phone rang.”
- “And I was asking her if she was hungry and she just had that little sleepy look as she was walking by”––not “As she walked by, I asked her...” –The order of the telling should reflect the order in which events occurred. According to the sentence, he asked her if she was hungry before she walked by.
- “And I was asking her if she was hungry and she just had that little sleepy look as she was walking by”––not “And I asked her”. “was asking” suggests something else happened that interrupted.
- “…and she just had that little sleepy look as she was walking by.”—“just” other options were present. Minimizes.
- “…had that little sleepy look as she was walking by.”—“that” not “this” “that” suggests distance. It also suggests something that the subject believes the viewers are familiar with.
- “…as she was walking by.”—suggests she continued to walk and did not stop.
- “…as she was walking by.”—“by” what? The subject does not include where he is located. Missing information.
- “And she was just walking by”–– “just” other options were present. Minimizes.
- “And she was just walking by”–– A subject should report what happened in the order of how they experienced the event. According to the language, the subject has Isabel “walking by” twice. Since there is nothing in the story to explain how she walked by twice, this suggests the subject may not be telling this part of the story from memory. Deception may be present.
- “She is–she wa–she is so full of life,”—the subject begins with “She is” then says something that sounds like “she was” but quickly says “she is” again. By repeating “she is” this strongly suggests he is correcting what he just said.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Given that the subject is describing Isabel’s general being “full of life”, this should be looked at quite carefully and experts should review the video to confirm if “was” is present in the subject’s language.
I heard him say "was", and correct himself. When a parent of a missing child is able to reference the child in the past tense, it is an indication that the parent believes or knows that the child is dead.
Does Sergi believe or know she is dead?
Police have not given any indication that she is dead. In fact, the parents report that the police tell them little.
Sergie said he would never stop searching for her indicating no belief in finding her.
Behavioral Analysis, previously posted, shows that the parents are deceptive and are not making efforts to recover Isabel, leading us to believe she is already dead. Even by using the word count Kaaryn brought out affirms this.
It is likely that Isabel is dead and Sergie knows it, and has confidence that her body will not be recovered.
- “And we do miss her so much.”—“do” emphasizes and suggests the subject may have felt the need to include this information. Note the need to express that she is missed:
Q: Is there doubt and has that doubt been expressed to the subject that they miss her?
- “XXX? even said he’ll love her so much.”—This sentence needs to be clarified. It is unclear in the video what the subject is saying, but it appears that there may be someone who did not love Isabel but will love her in the future.
- “We just need everyone out there, everyone, just to keep praying for her. Keep your eyes out.”—Praying for Isabel is first priority. “Keep your eyes out” (looking) is second priority.
- “We just need everyone out there, everyone, just to keep praying for her.”––not “praying for her safe return.”
- BC: And pray for her.
- AC: As you know, any time there is a case of a missing child, the parents and family come under scrutiny. Becky , what do you want to tell us about how intense that scrutiny is now? Has it lessened? Is it still as intense? And how do you feel about it?
- BC: It's necessary, um, to do. And if it's anything close to getting Isa home, Isa back home safely, then whatever it takes. It's nothing we can't handle. We, we want her back. So whatever it takes to get her back, we will do.
- “And if it's anything close to getting Isa home, Isa back home safely, then whatever it takes.”—not “if it helps to bring Isa home safely…” “anything close to” speaks to proximity. It is important for the subject. The repetition of bring her home, and then bring her home safely makes the topic sensitive.
- AC: You know, there is no easy way to ask this question, but because this is your first live television interview, Sergio , let me ask you this question. What do you want to say about questions about whether you had anything to do with your daughter's disappearance?
- SC: Gosh. I wish I knew where to begin. We are so frustrated to try to understand why this is happening, why this had to happen, why Isabel had to be targeted. We just don't understand that. And to whomever did this, please, look at her. Look at her. She's beautiful. She doesn't deserve this. She deserves to be home. She deserves to be home in her room playing with her brothers and just loving life the way she does. This is -- there's so many things that are just so frustrating and so difficult to deal with. You --we just want her home. We just want her home.
- As has been noted by others, the subject does not include, “I did not do it.” or words to that effect that clearly states a denial of involvement.
- “…why this is happening…”—present tense. Not “why it happened”. There are two events inside the case:
1) the actual taking of Isabel from her room, an event in the past
2) the ongoing disappearance without a ransom note or communications from the kidnappers, an event still in the present.
- “…why this had to happen, why Isabel had to be targeted.…”—“had to” indicates there was no choice. This suggests the subject knows there was no choice in the matter by those who perpetrated Isabel’s disappearance. How would the subject know this information?
- “…why Isabel had to be targeted”—not “taken”. “targeted” suggests retaliation and something planned.
- “And to whomever did this,”—not “took her”.
- “She doesn't deserve this.”—“deserve” strongly suggests the subject sees this as punishment.
Q: If the subject sees this as punishment, then he would know what the punishment is for.
- “You --we just want her home. We just want her home.”--the subject starts to speak to someone, but then stops himself.
Q: Who is he speaking to and why did he stop?
Always note the pronouns and the changes in pronouns.
- AC: Do you have any reason to believe that someone is holding her for ransom, Sergio ?
- BC: No demands have been made.
- SC: Not because, not because it's been made and not because it's been said, there have been no demands. There have been no, any calls for a ransom. We have the reward ready. We--there has been no communication that we're aware of. The detectives and the investigators have, you know, been good in communicating with us every day. But at the same time, you know, there's only so much they can tell us. There's only so much they do tell us. They keep us at bay. And all of that is frustrating. I–I, we understand that they can't bring false hope. But at the same time, you know, we're desperate. We're desperate in finding out information. We're extremely frustrated that it's taking so long. And we understand that they're doing absolutely everything possible. And sometimes it does feel that, yes, we do feel sometimes that they're wasting time with us even though we know we have to be under, you know, the closest scrutiny, absolutely, understandable. But my goodness. She's still out there.
- “There have been no, any calls for a ransom. We have the reward ready.” “reward”––not “ransom”. Change of language. There is a clear distinction between “ransom” and “reward”. “ransom” is given to the kidnappers. A “reward” is given to someone who supplies information leading to the kidnapped child’s safe return. Since the subject did not say, “We have the ransom ready”, we cannot assume the money is designated as such. This could indicate that the subject does not feel there will be any need for “ransom”.
- “We--there has been no communication that we're aware of.”––communication from whom? The subject does not say, “the kidnappers”
- “We--there has been no communication that we're aware of.”—this suggests the subject believes the authorities might not tell them if there was communication with the kidnappers and it is done so in a casual manner. This is an odd position for a parent to take. A parent would not stand for being kept in the dark on such matters. They would demand to know if kidnappers had communicated. Also, the kidnappers would not communicate with the authorities. They would communicate with the parents. “that we’re aware of” suggests the subject is leaving the door open in the event evidence is discovered to the contrary.
- “I–I, we understand that they can't bring false hope.”—change of pronoun at the beginning of a sentence indicates deception (hiding information) may be present at this point. The subject begins to say something and then changes his mind.
- “you know” x 4—the subject wants the listener to fill in the blanks. Missing information. Sensitive area.
- “And sometimes it does feel that, yes, we do feel sometimes that they're wasting time with us…”—but not all the time.
- “And sometimes it does feel that, yes, we do feel sometimes that they're wasting time with us…”— Not “think”. “feel” speaks to emotion while “think” speaks to knowledge. They should know it’s a waste of time.