Thursday, April 23, 2015

Statement Analysis of Sergio Celis 2015 and 911 Call


Three years ago, Isabel Celis, 6, went missing.  If you are new to Statement Analysis and new to this case, fasten your seatbelt.  What you are about to read is going to sound strange, but as you read through this, and the father's 911 call, and then on to the Dr. Phil Show, you will see how the words this father uses in his 2015 interview make sense.  

Three years ago, Isabel Celis, 6, went missing and before a single word was analyzed, behavioral analysis was in play:  

The parents did not want to address the 'kidnapper' via media,  nor in any other manner  in spite of police setting this up for them.  A few days passed and media pressure got to them, and they spoke. This is the same as going grocery shopping, having your toddler wander off, and you, the parent, not calling out after your child, but literally finishing your shopping, packing up the groceries in your car, driving home, unpacking them, having lunch, and then, when someone pressures you, pick up the phone and report your child missing. 

In other words, the parents that behave this way, do not want their child found.  

After pressure built up from both police, who witnessed the reluctance to help get in touch with whoever "abducted" Isabel, and the media reporting that the family is not cooperating, they decided to speak.  

They did.  

We then knew that Isabel was not "missing" nor would Isabel be found alive.  

The firestorm began then and there. 

Both behavioral and statement analysis showed guilty knowledge about what happened to Isabel. But it wasn't done uncovering information.  

Then the family gave an interview on the Dr. Phil Show, and expert analysis from Kaaryn Gough confirmed what initial analysis showed:  Isabel not only was not kidnapped, but never left that home alive and the mother, too,  was covering.  They reported their child kidnapped but on the show, they did not use the following words:

kidnap
kidnapper
ransom
payment
contact
getting Isabel back
return
safe

or anything associated or expected with a kidnapping.  For those that thought that only Sergio was deceptive, this show indicated both parents for deliberately misleading police and the public.  

Child Protective Services removed the father, Sergio, from the house and police released the 911 call which showed:  deception indicated.  

What's worse than this?  The language employed by Sergio Celis was consistent with sexual homicide. 

This call showed a giggling deceptive caller, scripting his language to fit the story.  Here is a news story from WGUN9.  It it, Sergio sticks to the script.

Isabel Celis missing three years later: Father says "Unbelievable disbelief of everything"


The YouTube links below to watch the full KGUN9 interview with Sergio and Rebecca Celis:


TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - It's been exactly three years since Isabel Celis vanished from her home. Her disappearance and massive multi-agency search made national headlines.

But the coverage has waned and thousands of leads have turned up nothing. Her parents Rebecca and Sergio Celis say they will not give up looking for her. 

Sergio retraced his steps the morning his daughter disappeared.

"I went into her bedroom.  She wasn't in her bed. I said Isabel. I looked in here. She wasn't in the bed," said Sergio.

Note the awkward repetition.  He is not outright lying.  He did actually look in her bedroom. 
Note "the" bed, and not "her" bed.  He is working from his previous statements and not from experiential memory, but memory of what he reported earlier.  
He moves through the house to his sons room, Julien and Sergio.

Next, we note he moves into present tense language. 

"There's a lot of blankets on the ground. I lift up the blankets. She's not under the blankets. Came here knocked on door Isabel. Are you in the bathroom?" he said.

Note:

1.  present tense language instead of past tense language
2.  Note the dropped pronoun with "Came here knocked on door."
Please also note that blankets and doors are in his statements.  These are often in statements where sexual abuse has taken place, and in statements where the speaker, himself, may have been a victim of childhood sexual abuse. 
"Other bedroom I looked in here," he said.

Here he goes back to past tense.  The changing of tense shows inconsistency and a signal that he is not speaking from experiential memory.  
The last place to look before searching outside, the garage.

"I literally walked in the garage and walked all the way around because okay now this is getting strange," he said.

Note that he uses the word "literally" which suggests that other things he has reported may have been figurative or more simply put, not "literally" fulfilled.  This is not the language of truth in searching for his daughter but indication that he knew she was not where he went.  
Note "because" shows the need to explain why he walked "all the way around" as if any effort to find his daughter was strenuous.

Note the return, mid sentence, to present tense language.  This is another indicator that he is making up this information as he goes along.  This is consistent with "literally" being a signal that he has not been "literal" about his search.  
A moment later, his son Sergio runs from Isabel's room to tell him. 

"He says Dad, her window's wide open. Her screen is busted out." 

He, again, goes present tense.  Please also note that besides doors and coverings (blankets) as being part of the language of sexual abuse, windows, opening and closing, are also part of the language of sexual abuse. 
"And then it all began. It all began," The nightmare as Sergio describes it. 

The nightmare, if that is what he was referencing, did not begin when Isabel went missing, but when his son reported the window being "wide open."  
After searching outside he made a phone call to Rebecca, who had already left for work. He had told her, 

"Isa's not here. You need to get your butt home now. We can't find her anywhere. Sergio's out running around the neighborhood. I can't find her. The screen's broken out. The window's wide open. You need to get home. Did you call 911? No, I wanted to call you first."

This is why I referenced "scripting" language earlier.  He is now repeating his bizarre 911 call, particularly the sensitive part where he giggled and said, "get your butt home" on tape; something that has been repeated often in media as inappropriate.  
That call to his wife, he said, was the worst thing he's ever had to do. 

One might think the worst thing he ever had to do was confront that his daughter was missing but to him, it was to do with his wife. 

Please carefully consider this as truthful and then read further down to the 911 call where he was asked, "how tall is she?" and he answered with his wife's height. 

He was very nervous about telling his wife, and in hindsight, this is yet another indication that she was aware of sexual abuse.  Read the analysis below.  It is very likely that CPS was aware of allegations of sexual abuse and got Sergio to move out of the home, via "Safety Planning" (agreement) but did not have enough to have a judge order him out. 

This means that CPS talked with both parents about sexual abuse allegations; something serious enough to get him out of the house.  

With this in mind, listen to his words here, and then 3 years earlier, in the 911 call.  His directive to his wife is like "faux authority" where he tells her to "get her butt home" as if to portray himself in a position of moral authority, which, if true, highlights that his wife "had something on him" and knew something.
Remember, CPS got him to leave the house, and not her.  


"And making that phone to tell her that was harder than making that 911 call. How the heck am I going to tell Becky that Isabel's not here."

To the public, this sound strange. It is much worse to think of a missing child than to just tell his wife, but if the scenario is as the analysis and the contact with CPS suggests, we can understand why the call was much worse.  

Did Isabel threaten to report what had happened in that home? Did she have to be silenced to preserve the rest of the family?  Consider this as a possibility as you read through the case, and listen to the references to the brothers, and the level of concern over them, far more than any concern about what Isabel, the "missing" child, might have experienced. 
Then came the call to 9-1-1.

Cavazos: "Normally someone would think, I'm going to call 911 first. What happened?" 

Sergio Celis: "Disbelief. I just felt like there has to be an explanation, you know. Don't panic."


Dispatcher: "911. What's your emergency?"

Sergio Celis: "I want to report a missing person. My little girl. She's 6 years old. I believe she was abducted from our house."

Here it is best to view the actual 911 call with analysis rather than what this station reported.  
That calm tone during the 911 call -- and a little laugh opened a floodgate of accusatory finger pointing from the public.

Dispatcher: "Is mom there also? Sergio: She had just left to work. And I just called her and I told her to get her butt home. Laugh."

"Everyone is critiquing on how I sounded on my 911 call because I wanted to be so calm and get it all across. That they probably would have heard my speaking to Becky the way the nurses heard me ask for her. Maybe that is what they needed to hear or something. I just don't understand that."

Although his voice inflection is bizarre and difficult to ignore, Statement Analysis deals specifically with the words he employed instead. 
These words indicated deception on his part, not nervousness, but deliberate desire to deceive law enforcement into thinking Isabel was kidnapped by a caller who knows that she was not kidnapped.  
And he's frustrated, he said, that the accusations continue to this day. "So when you ask me, how am I today, 3 years later. Unbelievable disbelief of everything, of everything."

He said he's most angry and frustrated with Tucson Police Department's investigation. "The investigators.  Everyone who's in charge of this investigation and the higher ups from them -- FBI, U.S. Marshals - everybody -- remembering that ridiculous circus and it wasn't to find my little girl."

The circus, he described, were the hundreds in law enforcement who scoured the neighborhood, the city, the county for days.

The entire effort, he said, was just for show

"If there was a purpose she should have been found within the first 24 hours. Instead of wasting three days on us. Having us down there 12 hours a piece -- separating us doing everything they possibly could to make our lives that much worse. We just lost our little girl. We haven't been victimized enough by that?" 

Stirring his anger even more, "Letting suspects go. And not drilling the real people the way they drilled us."

One in particular, Rebecca Celis said, a relative she won't reveal to the public, who left town after Isabel vanished, hired a lawyer, and refused to cooperate with police. 

Rebecca Celis: "I feel like he ran and what's going to keep him from running again." 
Cavazos: "You don't know where he is now?" 
Rebecca: "Yes, I know where he is."

What purpose is there to withhold his name since they already believe police have failed when they targeted the parents?

Both parents are angry, frustrated, but the current lead investigator in the case Tucson Police Lt. Matt Rondstat told KGUN 9 "that's understandable."

He said it's natural to lash out at police during the investigative process. They've followed every standard investigative procedure, every lead handed to them, and have interviewed everybody who may have information in this case.

A mother's love.

Freedom Park. The place where little Isa hurt herself on the bleachers, a moment that plays back over and over in her mother's  mind.

It was the day before little Isa vanished. "Her coming up to me and saying that she hurt herself. Okay it's time to sit down with me for a little bit," said 

A mother's love, the instinct to protect, runs deep. A bond that's been severed.  Three years later, there are vivid details that, Rebecca said, won't ever fade.

"The last thing I did with Isa and everything leading up to that is very very clear. And I think because of what happened I don't think you ever forget those very fine details.

But those details, those images, are of a six-year-old girl. Rebecca imagines what her daughter would look like today using two of Isa's friends as a reference.
"Looking at the two girls makes me think she hasn't changed. Facially hasn't changed very much. Her expression hasn't changed much just because I'm comparing her to how those two girls are," she said. 

And she imagines where her daughter might be. "I think she's in a house somewhere where she's not allowed to, maybe not allowed to use.  She knew how to use a computer. She knew how to use a phone," she said.

She thinks about the 3 Cleveland girls held captive by Ariel Castro and found 10 years later.

Cavazos: "Do you think that might be the  case here?" 

Rebecca Celis: "Why not? Why couldn't it be? All I can hope for is that she's being well taken care of and that she's safe and that she's okay. Cavazos: You believe she's alive? Rebecca: Oh yeah. Yeah. I feel it in my heart."

Note she asks two questions without waiting for an answer.  She can answer these questions and does not believe she needs to. 

She dreams of her daughter's return one day -- a reason the Celis family won't move from their home though they want to.

Rebecca Celis: "You're asking if I want to move. Yes, I want to move. Do I want to move without Isa? No. 
Sergio Celis: I don't see us leaving. No."

They'll remain for now, but they've changed anniversary events. They're no longer holding them for the public. Instead they hope people will donate funds in honor of Isabel to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The organization is also making a face progression of Isabel -- what she would look like today, to help in the search for her.

Here is the analysis of the 911 call: 

Here is the entire 911 call made by Sergio Celis regarding his missing 7 year old daughter, Isabel. 

Statement Analysis is in bold type.  Emphasis by underlining, italics and color added.  Please note that the color blue is given for the highest level of sensitivity.  



Dispatcher:911 what's your emergency?
Sergio Celis: I want to report a missing person, my little girl who's six years old, I believe she was abducted from our house.
Please note that additional or extra words give us additional information.   The added word "want" actually reduces commitment.  
Please note that he is reporting a missing "person"; it is not expected that a father would refer to his child as a "person" 
Note the order:
1.  He wants to report a missing person
2.  "My little girl" 
3.  He "believes" she was "abducted" from "our" house.  That she may have been abducted is third. 
When someone calls their home "our" house, it shows a desire to share ownership.  This is often seen in divorces, or can enter the language of those who rent a room in the home, or live with others.  That he feels a need to share the home while reporting a child missing should not be missed.  We find that the pronouns "we" and "our" come from parents who wish to share guilt (Dillingham) especially since parenting a child is a highly personal ("I" and "my") relationship. 
Note the assertion of abduction is only "believed" which is weak.  If he believes that she has been abducted, he should have a reason for his belief.  An abduction is conclusionary and does not hold the same meaning as "kidnapped" where ransom and contact may be expected.  That a father of a missing child could jump to this conclusion should alert investigators to withheld information. 
Dispatcher: What's the address?
Sergio: 57 or 5602 E. 12th Street.
Dispatcher: Okay. Stay on the line for Tucson Police.
Sergio: I will.
Dispatcher: Tucson Police Department, Gabhart
Sergio: Hello, I need to report a uh, missing child. I believe she was abducted from my house.
Please note that his call to the police who will be investigating the "abduction" begins with the greeting, "Hello."  
People in a hurry to report an emergency may not think to be polite, unless there is a reason to 'befriend' the operator. 

  There may be a psychological reason for this:  some guilty parents will seek to make friends or be at peace with those who might later suspect them.  This is why guilty parents will often "thank" police for their work in searching for the missing child, rather than show impatience and frustration.  They are, literally, "thankful" for the police failure to locate the "missing" child.  This shows itself early in an investigation, and then turns to rage (or disappears) as time passes and the public is aware that the police now suspect the same parents who once thanked them.  
This should be seen as a red flag for guilty caller, and an attempt to portray him as "friendly" with the police.  Urgency on the part of the innocent parent is expected; not a casual greeting. 
Please note the change of language.  When language changes, it should reflect a change in reality.  If not, it may be an indication of deception as the subject does not speak from memory and is not keeping track of his words:
"missing person" and "my little girl" and "our house" is now:
"missing child" from "my" house.  
There does not appear to be any justification for the change in the context, therefore, it may be that it is not coming from experiential memory.  
Note how he refers to Isaabel:
To him, Isabel is not "Isabel" but a "person" and a "little girl" and a "child."
Person:  gender neutral
"little girl" specific gender
"child" is often used when at risk.  While "missing" she is a "person" (non specific) and "child"
Dispatcher: Okay. How old?
Sergio: Six years old.
Dispatcher: Okay is it your daughter or?
Sergio: Yes
Dispatcher: Why do you think she abducted?
That the subject said he thought his daughter was "abducted" was not expected by the 911 operator.  An "abduction" is a conclusion, therefore, the subject must have good reason to say what he did, especially given a father's instincts. 

Since he has reported his daughter abducted, he now is asked why he thinks this.  It should be easy enough to explain, since, after all, he reported it as such:  
Sergio: I have no ideaWe woke up this morning and went to go get her up, start her baseball game and she's gone. I woke up my, my sons, I, we looked everywhere in the house and my oldest son noticed her window was wide open and the screen was laying the backyard. We've looked all around the house, my son…
Deception indicated
1.  Please note that "I have no idea" is not expected.  He asserted what he thought but now claims to have "no idea" what caused him to say so?  This is not credible.  That she is "missing" would show an "idea" why.  A child is missing and a parent says that they have "no idea"?  We saw the same deception from Justin DiPietro, father of Ayla Reynolds, who's blood was found in his basement. 
2.  Please note that he reports that "we" woke up; not "I" woke up.  This is an indication of deception.  Note that he does not say who the "we" are here.  Pronouns are instinctive and guilty people seek to share responsibility with the word "we", no different than a guilty teenager runs away from commitment in hopes of sharing guilt with the word "we"(Dillingham)
3.  Note the highest level of sensitivity is found in two specific parts of language:
A.  "Left" (departed) when used as an unnecessary connecting verb
B.   Reason Why:  "to, therefore, so, since, because..." and so on.  This means that the subject, when reporting what happened, has a need to explain why he did something. 
These two parts of language are given the highest level of sensitivity in Analysis, and are color coded with blue to highlight specific areas of extreme sensitivity.  When more than one is found, we know we are at a highly sensitive 
He tells the reason why he went to get Isabel, of whom he avoids using her name (distancing language) 
4.  Pronouns are well practiced by humans since the earliest days of speech and are completely reliable.  When someone cannot keep track of pronouns, deception is present.  
Note:  "I, we looked everywhere"indicates deception.  
Dispatcher: Okay, hang on.
Sergio:…are running, yeah, my sons are running around the house looking for her.
This should not have been needed to be said and is an attempt to portray the family as united and searching.  There is no need for him to say that the house has been searched unless...
Unless he has a need to persuade police that they searched the house.  Who would not search the house?  This was expected before calling 911.  
Dispatcher: the screen was on the ground outside?
Sergio: Yes
His daughter was not in her bed, and the screen was on the ground outside, yet he had "no idea" why he thought she was abducted?  This does not make sense, unless it is a false report:  as a false report, that is, not coming from experiential memory, it makes sense. 
Dispatcher: What's her address?
Sergio: 5602 E. 12th Street.
Dispatcher: What's your name sir?
Sergio: My name is Sergio, S-E-R-G-I-O, middle initial D, last name is C-E-L-I-S,
Dispatcher: I-S as in Sam?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay, what's her name?
Sergio: Isabel, I-S-B-E-L, uh, I-S-A-B-E-L, M as in man is the middle initial
Here is when her name enters his language, but only in response to a direct question. 
Dispatcher: Okay, same last name?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay what's her actual birth date?
Sergio: Is (removed by TPD), of uh, (removed by TPD). I'm sorry. (removed by TPD) and she's going to seven this year, so uh, (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. Is mom there also?
This is a yes or no question.  Anything beyond "yes" or "no" is sensitive.  
Sergio: Uh, she had just left for work, I just called her and I told her to get her butt home. (chuckles)
Here he established his wife's alibi.  Whatever happened to Isabel, instead of answering "yes or no" there was a need to explain that it happened while his wife was not home.  
If he had "no idea" what happened to her, how is it that she had "just" left for work?  
Please note the word "told."
The word "told" is used in authoritative sentences.  "My boss said to be at work at 9" is one way of saying it, while, "My boss told me..." is stronger.  Here, he portrays the sentence as if he had to exercise authority to "tell" her or "instruct" her to come home. 
Is this reasonable?
No. 
A mother of a missing 6 year old would not have to be "told" to come home from work:  she would leave immediately.  Here, the subject wants us to believe that he had to impose authority over her, as indicated by the word "told" in his language.  
Next, this is buttressed by his wording "get your butt home." 
By his language:   He is portraying her reluctance to come home.  Is this how he wanted it?  Is this how Becky wanted it?
Please note that he is heard chuckling on the call made to report his missing child. 
In statement analysis we say that we do not analyze the person, but the words, and that people who analyze voice inflection are often wrong as often as they are right.  But it is here that it is so ridiculous that it sounds cartoon like and is impossible to ignore:
He laughed while reporting his daughter missing, while he is being deceptive.  His nervousness is likely due to the deception and need to portray himself as authoritative and helpful.  
Dispatcher: Okay, mother.
Sergio: But she was…
Dispatcher: What kind of vehicle is she going to be en route back in?
Sergio: Uh, in our Lexus RX300, and it's red.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio: And she's coming from TMC, so she should just be coming straight down Craycroft.
Dispatcher: Okay. How tall is she?
Sergio: She is five two.
This indicates where his mind is:  he is concentrating on "pleasing" the operator and not about his missing daughter.  

His language reveals that Isabel is not a priority.  He thought of his wife in the "get your butt home" comment and his mind is still on his wife, not daughter, who, if truly "missing" or "abducted" would be all he cared about.  This is a parental instinct to care only for the missing child.  He is more concerned with image and alibi than he is with his missing daughter. 
Dispatcher: No the, I'm sorry, you're daughter
Sergio: Oh my daughter. Um…forty inches. Thirty, yeah 36 to 40 inches.
If your child was missing, would a 911 operator need to redirect your attention back to your daughter? This is the reason in an interview, we do not "redirect" anything:  we listen. 
Dispatcher: Okay. Is she black, white, or Hispanic?
Sergio: She's a fair skinned Hispanic with uh, clear eyes and light brown hair.

What color are "clear" eyes?
Dispatcher: And what do you mean by clear eyes? Like…
Sergio: Uh, well they're a little bit green…
Dispatcher: Are they hazel or?
Sergio:…green, green, hazel, sure.
Dispatcher: Hazel, okay. And you said she's about 40 inches tall.
Sergio: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Do you remember what she was wearing last night when you saw her?
The expectation is "yes" followed by what she was wearing.  It is a yes or no question, but it has the expectation of commentary for the purpose of helping locate her.  His answer reveals that he saw her two times.  
Please note this. 
In Sergio Celis' answer, he dilineates different times he saw what she was wearing.  He should simply report what pajamas the six year old had on.  This is where extra words give away the information needed:  
Sergio: Uh, before she went to bed I believe she was wearing little navy blue shorts and, and a pink uh, a pink like little uh, tank top type of a shirt.
He reports what she wore, not to bed, but "before she went to bed" indicating that this may not be what she was wearing when she went to bed, or when she went missing. 
Also note that besides not reporting what pajamas she had on, he describes her shirt and shorts as "little":  
She is six years old. 
Not only does she have on "little shorts" and a "tank top" but a "little tank top" type of shirt.   Since she is six years old, we would expect that her shorts would not be large.  That he uses this language is concerning and the analyst should be on the alert for possible signals of sexual abuse, including lights, doors, windows, water, etc.  
The dispatcher reflects back the language, without the additional and "unimportant" information of the size of the clothing:  
Dispatcher: Pink tank top? Okay. Navy blue shorts. Has she ever tried to sneak out of a window or anything?
Sergio: Oh no.
Dispatcher: Have you guys…
Sergio: Hu-uh
Dispatcher: …been having any weird phone calls, anything like that, somebody hanging around?
Sergio: No. We got home late from uh, my son's baseball game.

Note that "we got home" is plural, with "my" son being singular.  This is expected with biological parents.  Yet, when speaking of the missing child, she is "our" daughter.  This is different. 
"Our" is the language of 'sharing', that is:
step parenting,
foster parenting,
adoption, or something related to having someone else involved in the child's life other than the biological parents. 

This is, therefore, sometimes in the language of biological parents who have discussed divorce. 

It is also found in the language of biological parents where there is a need to share guilt.  
Dispatcher: Uh-hm
Sergio: You know, about 10:30 last night. (clears throat) Everyone took their showers and they all went to bed. I even was in the living room watching uh, the Diamondbacks game at midnight.

In sexual abuse cases, we find words such as "door", "window" and "blanket" (coverings) as well as "lights" and references to water, in any form. 
"Water", in particular, enters the language of sexual homicides.  That he felt the need to mention "showers" should cause investigators to explore the possibility of sexual abuse in the caller's history, including checking with CPS, school teachers, and the pediatrician.  
When someone reports what happened, they cannot say everything, therefore, they edit out what they do not feel is important and keep in what they feel is needed.  Next, they must choose which words to use, and what order to put them in. 

All of this happens in less than a millisecond in time. 


Dispatcher: Uh-hm.
Sergio: And I feel asleep and I never heard anything weirdSo I was like just on the…
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…other side of the wall from her.
Dispatcher: How, how many siblings does she have?
Sergio: Two.
Dispatcher: Okay, and those are brothers you said?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: How old are they?
Sergio: 14 and 10.
Dispatcher: And you said they're out looking or they were looking all over the house?
Sergio: Oh no, they, they just, they just went right now, my oldest son, the 14 year old, he went running around just to make sure um, but I, she's nowhere
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…to be seen
Dispatcher: Outside or inside?
Sergio: He's outside our property wall.
Dispatcher: Okay. And where is the ten year old?
Sergio: He's in the garage. He's just out in the garage just waiting for…
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…my wife.
Dispatcher: Okay and what's mom's name?
Sergio: Becky.
Dispatcher: Okay. And what's your birth date sir?
Sergio: (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. And what's mom's?
Sergio: Uh, (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. Any you're both natural parents of the child?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay. So no, no step-parents, any, any problems with any grandparents?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. So you're not having any family issues, anything like that?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. And you haven't noticed anybody hanging out in front of your house?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. You're son that's 14, what's his name?
Sergio: (inaudible yelling in background) Uh, I'm sorry, my wife just walked in and, and she's speaking to somebody. I don't know if she's speaking to the police also. She might have been calling on her way. You asked me about my son, what did you ask me?

In a 911 calls of domestic homicide, the words "I'm sorry" entering for any reason, were flagged for guilt.  It was found in a number of guilty callers of domestic homicides.  It is something that is on the mind of the guilty and it "leaks" out in the words, for whatever reason. (Gough) 
Dispatcher: Yeah the, the 14 year old that's out looking for her?
Sergio: Yes. What about him?
Dispatcher: Um, well hang on a second. Okay, actually I think one of your sons is trying to call. Um, I'm sorry, what was your 14 year old's name?
Sergio: (Taken out by Tucson News Now)
Sergio: My wife just got home and she's kind of hysterical and freaking out, so.
Dispatcher: I, okay. Tell her we are on the way, we've got a…
Sergio: Okay.
Dispatcher:…bunch of officers on the way, I want you guys to stay there in the house.
Sergio: We will.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:Bu-bye
Analysis conclusion:

This is a deceptive call regarding an "abduction" that did not take place, made by a subject with willful and guilty knowledge.  Specifically, the caller is deceptive about what happened to Isabel Celis, of whom he distances himself, and is deceptive about his own actions.  


It is likely that Isabel Celis has been a victim of sexual abuse and is not alive.  

81 comments:

Anonymous said...

So sad for Isabel.


As for, "Sergio: She's a fair skinned Hispanic with uh, clear eyes and light brown hair.

What color are "clear" eyes?

--For a Spanish-speaker, "ojos claros" are light-colored eyes, I think he mistakenly thinks it's the same in English.

Lis said...

I was just thinking about this case and wondering if there had been any progress on it the other day. Sad to see the charade is still ongoing.

I'm somewhat comforted to hear the general public is still skeptical of them.

I doubt they can move. If someone else took possession of the house, they might find something or allow the house to be more thoroughly examined. Maybe some stone was left unturned.

"We just lost our little girl. We haven't been victimized enough by that?" You tell us.

tania cadogan said...

It is interesting that in all these calls of a faked abduction of a child, the parents in each case get p155ed because the police are focusing on them and not 'real people' or so called 'sightings' however unlikely they are such as not only a different city but different states. countries or continents.

It soon becomes clear that the parents attention is on themselves and not their missing child.
It becomes all about how they are being victimised, police aren't looking at other possible suspects, they complain about being questioned, which is and should be part of every missing person case given the statistics.

it becomes how they feel emotionally, how they are having to cope, how they feel they are being treated by the police, the media and the public.

It all boils down to me me me and the missing child is a distraction, an inconvenience.

When you know what to listen and look for, the same words and intentions, the underlying emotions are as if written from a script.
The only differences are the names and the accents.

They are reading from a script, an unwritten script that all those guilty of killing their child and then claiming faked abduction resort to.

Llame someone else, claim victimisation/bias, refuse to call out to their missing child or to the alleged abductor, introduce vague sightings of the missing child or possible abductor regardless of how impausible or impossible, bring in psychics and attention seekers to flood the investigation with nonsense tips, hire dodgy investigators with no record of working on missing person cases, pay for sightings/alibis/threats to sue and if all else fails move and say nothing ever, to anyone.

It is like there are boxes of options and the guilty get to tick each box as they use it, a how to guide on faking an abduction (childrenss version)

I can almost see what box is going to be ticked next when something doesn't work or isn't as effective as they need.

If box A doesn't work tick box B and so on

Anonymous said...

Justin Mastromarino is responsible:


Ryan McVay/Thinkstock
(TUSCON, Ariz.) -- Isabel Mercedes Celis’ disappearance from her Tucson Ariz. home this weekend is being described as an unusual case, with police saying there’s no evidence she was taken from the residence or that she left on her own.

Celis’ parents last saw their 6-year-old daughter Friday night around 11 p.m. in her bedroom.

When Celis’ father went to wake her up on Saturday morning, she was gone.

“She was checked on at about 8 ‘o clock so they can start their day. And she was not in her room at that point,” said Sgt. Maria Hawke of the Tucson Police Department.

Police are exploring all possibilities.

“We don’t have an actual piece of evidence that points us in one direction or another so for example we don’t have a piece of evidence that says she was definitively taken from the residence. We don’t have any specific piece of evidence that tells us she left the residence on her own,” said Hawke.

Isabel’s family has no doubt she was kidnapped by a stranger.

“You don’t think anything like that would actually really happen to you. And all of sudden, you wake up one morning and you’re in that scenario. Everything goes through your mind, you’re angry, you’re upset, you’re frustrated, you’re confused,” said Isabel’s uncle and family spokesperson Justin Mastromarino.

Mastromarino said Isabel’s bedroom window was open. He also said her family is a loving one.

“They’re very upset right now, mother is beside herself we’re just trying to let police do their thing and get as much info as possible,” said Mastromarino.

Mastromarino described his niece as “just a sweet little girl.”

“All the ambition in the world. She could do whatever she wanted. Didn’t really like strangers or anything like that so very close knitted and just very wise,” said Mastromarino.

Scores of police, FBI agents and federal marshals are engaged in a massive manhunt, which include aerial grid searches and checkpoints on the ground. They have virtually locked down the neighborhood, asking anyone if they’ve seen Isabel. Police have kept everyone away from the home as they look for any signs of damage or forced entry.

Copyright 2012 ABC News Radio

Anonymous said...

Ooh- They were on Dr. Phil and Gough analyzed it!!! Anybody have a link? I remember the Today Show/Ann Curry interview that she did analysis on, but don't remember that her conclusions were as strong as cited above so I assume the Dr. Phil interview/analysis came after that. Gough is amazing!

Lis said...

tania cadogan said...

...They are reading from a script, an unwritten script that all those guilty of killing their child and then claiming faked abduction resort to.

Very insightful, Tania. I guess the course that human nature takes a certain course when the circumstances are the same.

Anon, I don't know what role Mastromarino may have had in Isabel's disappearance but why would an action on his part cause Sergio and Becky to show guilt and deception in their statements? It should not.

I can't recall if we looked at his statements on here or not. If they show guilt as well, it's possible they all have guilty knowledge. Maybe he helped hide her body. The witness next door heard 2 men, right?

Anonymous said...

Kaaryn Gough: *"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."

[Sergio:]“It was just before she went to bed”—Kaaryn Gough: "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."

Anonymous said...

Tucson, AZ- Missing Since the early morning hours of Saturday April 21st from the window of her bedroom allegedly, the search for 6 year old Isabel Mercedes Celis has taken a turn toward her family.




"Playing Uncle" Photo from FB

On the heels of the appearance of Sergio and Becky Celis first public interview this morning on the Today show, sources inside the investigation have confirmed that Pima County detectives are scrutinizing the prior arrest and prior living arrangements of Justin Mastromarino, Isabel’s cousin. Although Justin was the initial spokesperson for the family immediately after Isabel’s disappearance, he dropped out of sight when investigators could not exclude him as a person of interest.

Mastromarino lived with the Celis family for some time in 2011. The image below was taken in front of the Celis home in June 2011.

Anonymous said...

They reported their child kidnapped but on the show, they did not use the following words:

kidnap
kidnapper
ransom
payment
contact
getting Isabel back
return
safe


or anything associated or expected with a kidnapping.


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."

Lis said...

OT
Peter, I have a question for you if you have time about the phrase "I promise." When a person is making a statement about something and they use the phrase "I promise" to persuade you that what they are saying is really the truth. I did find an older entry about this statement but I'm still a little confused. Is it likely that the person is being dishonest about the thing they are "promising" is true? Or is that statement likely true but calls into question the rest of what they are saying?

I always find it so odd when someone blurts that out when I am not asking them to promise me anything! And it always makes me feel I can't trust what the person is saying but why and in what way is this statement to be looked at? Thanks, Lis

Bonnie Blue said...

Peter,

"Sergio: Is (removed by TPD), of uh, (removed by TPD). I'm sorry. (removed by TPD) and she's going to seven this year, so uh.."

He actually said "I'm sorry" twice in this call!



Lemon said...

^^^ What Bonnie Blue said^^^

Anonymous said...

Below, a man named "Justin" called 911 when he found a girl's body. He says "I'm sorry" 4 times in his call.

Alejandro Avila was was convicted of the crime. Evidence included DNA under his nails, in his car among other physical evidence. He had no connection to passerby "Justin."

911 Call Transcript - Finding Samantha Runnion's Body

By Charles Montaldo, Crime Expert
Updated July 01, 2014.

DISPATCHER: Hi, it's CHP with a transfer for you. He's found a dead body on Killen Trail on the Ortega Highway.
CALLER: Hello?
DISPATCHER: Hi, what's going on?
CALLER: Oh my God, I found a dead body. Please hurry. OK? I'm in the Ortegas, OK? Ortega mountains. I'm in Riverside County, OK? Listen to me, I'm scared to sit here, there's another truck up the street and we want to get out of here. We're scared.

Snip to first "I'm sorry"

CALLER: OK, I'm just gonna call you as soon as I get there. I'm so scared, it was a little kid. I'm sorry.
DISPATCHER: Calm down.
CALLER: I'm sorry but I have a 3-year-old son.
DISPATCHER: You have a 3-year-old son with you? Justin, hey, hey was it an adult? Was it an adult's body?
CALLER: It's a baby. I think it may even be the little girl that's been on the news. It's a little girl. I swear. We just looked and as soon as we seen, I left. I don't know what to do
CALLER: (unintelligible).
DISPATCHER: Now how far off of Killen?
CALLER: (unintelligible).
DISPATCHER: Justin, do this. As soon as you get home, I want you to dial 911 and ask for Mary, OK?
CALLER: I'm freaking out. I'm sorry, I'll stop, all right?
DISPATCHER: That's OK, that's OK. I want you to dial 911 as soon as you get home and ask for Mary, OK?
CALLER: And ask for Mary?
DISPATCHER: Yes.
CALLER: OK, thank you. Bye.
DISPATCHER: Bye.
(LONG PAUSE)
CHP: Can I speak with her please, this is CHP, I got a call for her.
DIFFERENT DISPATCHER: She's out to lunch. Can I take the call? CHP: He said he was talking to Mary about a dead body or something and his phone keeps dying. Justin, there's the sheriff's office again.
DISPATCHER: This is Teresa with Riverside sheriff's department.
CALLER: You guys are supposed to pick me up or something so I could show you where to go ... (unintelligible).
DISPATCHER: OK, where exactly are you at right now?
CALLER: Where am I? I'm at the front of my ... I live in a closed community (unintelligible) I'm out by the front gate, so you guys will have to drive (unintelligible).
DISPATCHER: He'll be by at the front gate.
CALLER: I'm on Killen Trail right now (unintelligible) at the front gate of the entry.
DISPATCHER: He's on the way right now.
CALLER: I'm freaking out, man. I'm sorry, but this is the scariest (expletive) I've ever witnessed in my life, OK?
DISPATCHER: There is a deputy on his way. He's on the way from Elsinore, so just hang tight OK?
CALLER: OK I will. Thank you, Thank you very much.

john said...

OT:

Family of high school senior who drowned in Green disputes suicide claim (photos, audio)

911 call can be listened to in the link. The operator is not very good she feeds him answers to what may have happened "Was she trying to commit suicide?"

REEN, Ohio — A 55-year-old man who was with a North Canton Hoover High School senior when she drowned on Monday told a 911 dispatcher that she wanted to take her own life.

Family members of 18-year-old Brandi Morgan said Thursday that they don't believe she would harm herself.

Morgan of Plain Township drowned in a pond about 200 yards behind a supply shop on Greensburg Road. Charles Vlad, who described himself as a friend of Morgan's, told a dispatcher that Morgan was despondent the night she died.

But Morgan's sister, Brittney Wilmer, said on Thursday that she and her family don't believe Morgan wanted to commit suicide. Wilmer said she did not want to comment about the relationship between Vlad and her sister.

"There is absolutely no way she tried to harm herself," Wilmer said. "We're not the only ones who feel that way either. She was with friends all the way up until Sunday night and she never said anything about that."

Vlad did not return multiple messages left on his phone and at his home. His mother, who answered his door on Thursday, said Vlad is "extremely upset about everything."

Sheriff investigating circumstances

The Summit County Sheriff launched an investigation into the incident, which they called "suspicious." Inspector Bill Holland declined to provide additional information about the investigation.

Summit County Medical Examiner investigator Gary Guenther said Morgan's body had no signs of trauma and that they are awaiting toxicology results before issuing a ruling on her death.

Vlad told investigators that he and Morgan were swimming about 8:50 p.m. Monday at the pond, when her body went under the water, sheriff reports say. The Green Fire Department Dive Team pulled her body from the water about 30 minutes later.

Vlad called 911 and said Morgan had been talking about committing suicide because she was struggling in school and that she had recently decided against going into the Ohio National Guard after she graduated.

He said she drank alcohol and took prescription medication that night and that "nothing had gone right for her for weeks." He also mentioned Morgan being upset over someone she knew committing suicide.

She swam in to the pond and went under, Vlad said. He said he called her name for about five minutes, then dove in after her.

He said that he searched the pond for 10 or 15 minutes before calling 911. Vlad told the dispatcher he hoped she was playing a joke on him until he realized she never came out of the water.

Vlad sobbed throughout the nearly seven-minute call and said he viewed Morgan as a daughter.

"My sister drowned in 1968 when I was 5," Vlad told the dispatcher. "I know she's dead.",

This was mentioned twice within the call. There is also subtle disparagement, references to "god" and "help me"

Teen was 'happy-go-lucky'

Wilmer, 26, said her sister was "happy-go-lucky" and was looking forward to graduating from high school in May. Morgan was also set to begin boot camp with the Ohio National Guard in June.

She said her sister was in good physical condition to get herself ready for training and was an excellent swimmer.

Morgan, in many ways, was a typical teenager who liked going to the movies and spending time with friends. She held a part-time job at the Discount Drug Mart in North Canton for extra pocket money.

Her decision to join the National Guard surprised the family, but she showed an interest in joining the military because their grandfather was a Navy veteran.

http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2015/04/family_of_high_school_senior_w.html

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

"I literally walked in the garage and walked all the way around because okay now this is getting strange," he said.

Note body posture within a statement is an increase in tension.

He could have said "I went into the garage and went all the way round"

"Walked" is repeated making it sensitive. Does the "garage" hold any significance?

Peter Hyatt said...

Lis,

I'll post.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

To all,

As you can see, this is not an exhaustive analysis, but a general one, with some commentary.

This case has always bothered me emotionally which impacts the work, as this child suffered much before she died, while the parents not only were deceptive, but now have turned to slam law enforcement.

It is a case that triggers anger in me.

Peter


PS: "clear eyes" from Anonymous...thank you fro the clarity and the Spanish expression.

"Kidnapped by a Stranger"? said...

I see that Sergio did use the word “abducted” in his 911 call.

But in analyses of the interview of Sergio and Becky, it is reported that “they” claimed their child was “kidnapped by a stranger” early on.

Yet, in the first days, media reported Justin Mastromarino was the “family spokesperson.” Indeed, in the articles where it is reported “The family believes she was kidnapped by a stranger,” Justin is the only family member quoted. Then he disappeared.

Is there evidence that Sergio or Becky used the words “kidnapped” and “stranger” as claimed? If not is it fair to attribute Justin’s language to them?

The Today Show interview was two days before the article naming Mastromarino as a suspect and reporting he had fled. Is it possible they had knowledge of his involvement and were cautious about using words like “kidnapped” in hopes Justin wouldn’t be afraid to talk and cooperate? It appears that kind of caution has been asserted in more recent interviews.

Knowledge of Isabel's Death? said...

It is reported in analysis that Sergio Celis used past tense speaking about Isabel and thinks she’s dead. Yet are there exceptions to the rules about tense use?

In the grand jury testimony of Darren Wilson, he uses present tense to describe what was going on when Brown was charging him. A response was that he was asked questions in the present tense and is reflecting that language.
Also, if the subject is recalling a past event, we would expect past tense. Curry references a video of a past event and introduces the words “full of life” into the interview. Then she says/asks:

“you were asked to reenact the hours before Isabel disappeared. What do you remember about the last time you saw her, Sergio ?

He answers:

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.

That’s twelve past tense verbs recounting a specific past event.

Then he says:

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.

As he is recounting a past event and parroting the interviewer's language, an we really conclude he has knowledge she is dead?

Anonymous said...

It is a tough case and so sad. I (posting above) have numerous doubts about the parents' guilt and involvement. I'm asking questions I feel haven't been addressed and am not criticizing. I appreciate the discussion.

Apple said...

Anon 11:23, i dont think we need to make note of past tense use when someone is talking about something that happened in the past. Her hair was dine before bed, she had a game etc. The game is over, her hair isnt still being braided.
Peter has posted many times on use of present tense in PTSD, as people havent gotten past the particular incident they are speaking of in the present.

Apple said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Anon 11:23, i dont think we need to make note of past tense use when someone is talking about something that happened in the past. Her hair was dine before bed, she had a game etc. The game is over, her hair isnt still being braided.

Yes, thanks, Apple, that's exactly my point.

Celis was asked about a past event, he recounted that evening in the past tense and as part of that recollection said "she wa- is so full of life."

Yet, the analysis states:

"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."

If, as you say, we don't "take note of it," why was it noted here?

tania cadogan said...

i am watching the videos and what strikes me immediately is the sergio is very aware of the camera, how he appears to the camera ( best profile) and he is acting the role of concerned father.

This is not a genuine couple with a missing child, this is a couple acting and his his case, acting badly.
he sits stiffly hands an lap until asked to walk though what happened whereu7pon his hands move and he moves his hand to becky and then back to his knee with her arm/hand in contact.
She is the one doing a lot of the talking, i wonder if this is because he knows what they say will be analysised and he doesn't want to give anything away

tania cadogan said...

he is–she wa–she is so full of life,

The point here is he referred to her in the past tense before self editing and referring to her again in the present tense.

This is noted because , if they believe she is still alive as claimed then she should be referred to in the present tense.

That he said (self edited) she WAS so full of life, it is taken that she is no longer full of life, ie dead.
The question then arises what has caused him to use past tense when referring to his daughter?
What has he heard or been told that would indicate she is dead?
Time also plays a part, if he said this a year down the line then statistically he would think or believe his daughter to be dead.
If he said this with a short time span ie a couple of days or weeks down the line then we would have cause to wonder why the past tense reference.

Past tense is appropriate if referring to a specific event, such as getting her hair braided etc.
IN such cases where the subject is not speaking from experiential memory rather they are making it up to persuade the listener something happened which didn't, we would be looking out for the tense to slip from the expected past tense to the unexpected present tense.

Expected would be she got her hair braided before bed.

Unexpected would be she is getting her hair braided and then she gets in bed.

Past and present tenses do not always mean the subject is being truthful or deceptive, it depends on if the use in context is appropriate and if and when the tense changes and is warranted.

There are some who are familiar with SA and wil screw themselves into the ground to avoid a specific tense due to sensitivity.
it can lead to garbles sentences with lots of self editing as the brains tries to stop the mouth opening and inserting feet and thus incriminate themselves.

They are so sensitive to use of tenses they get focused on it and then slip up elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

The question then arises what has caused him to use past tense when referring to his daughter?

The fact that he was asked to recall a specific event in the past.
---------------------------
This makes sense?:
Q: What do you remember about that night?
A:She is so full of life

Seriously?

tania cadogan said...

In the second video it is telling that they tell us it is someone who knows their house, someone who knows their sleeping pattern.

I also noticed he got louder when talking about what he thinks happened and she shows a micro expression of disgust.

Anonymous said...

On the heels of the appearance of Sergio and Becky Celis first public interview this morning on the Today show, sources inside the investigation have confirmed that Pima County detectives are scrutinizing the prior arrest and prior living arrangements of Justin Mastromarino, Isabel’s cousin. Although Justin was the initial spokesperson for the family immediately after Isabel’s disappearance, he dropped out of sight when investigators could not exclude him as a person of interest.

Mastromarino lived with the Celis family for some time in 2011.

tania cadogan said...

i picked up that becky says she KNEW how to use the computer, she Knew how to use the phone


Does she no longer know how to use them?

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous said...

The question then arises what has caused him to use past tense when referring to his daughter?

The fact that he was asked to recall a specific event in the past.
---------------------------
This makes sense?:
Q: What do you remember about that night?
A:She is so full of life

Seriously?


yes seriously.

If you paid attention to the words used, he starts of with she is,self edits and then changes to she wa.. self edits again, he then reverts back to she is.

This is why you have to pay close attention and not hear what you think you hear or interpret what you think the subject means.

it is clear he slips into past tense before changing back to present.
He is aware that his statements are and will be analysed since his comments have been analysed previously

GeekRad said...

"All the ambition in the world. She could do whatever she wanted. Didn’t really like strangers or anything like that so very close knitted and just very wise,” said Mastromarino."

The uncle referred to her in past tense. They need to be looking at the uncle as well as Sergio and Becky.

tania cadogan said...

I don't get this. They know which family member hasn't been questioned the way they have, they know where he lives, they won't say who/where though in case he runs again.

Ummm why not tell LE who and where he is and have LE turn up and haul him in for questioning.

This is unexpected behavior from parents with an allegedly abducted daughter.

Innocent parents would be telling LE who they suspect, which family members need to be questioned and where they are.

Why are they effectively protecting the guy?

Is it because he is involved in some way and if he gets hauled in he will talk and implicate them?

They have to protect him to protect themselves.

Anonymous said...

This is why you have to pay close attention and not hear what you think you hear or interpret what you think the subject means.

Agreed. It is pretty simple:

1. He was asked a past tense question about a past event.

2. His answer included past tense verbs, as is appropriate

3. An analyst accused him of knowing his daughter is dead, not because he corrected, but because, he used a past tense verbs:

"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."

snip

It is likely that Isabel Celis ... is not alive."


Pretty shaky proof (though nothing personal!)

Anonymous said...

I don't get this. They know which family member hasn't been questioned the way they have, they know where he lives, they won't say who/where though in case he runs again.

Ummm why not tell LE who and where he is and have LE turn up and haul him in for questioning.

This is unexpected behavior from parents with an allegedly abducted daughter.


Where did they say they haven't told LE?

Anonymous said...

I don't get this. They know which family member hasn't been questioned the way they have, they know where he lives, they won't say who/where though in case he runs again.

Ummm why not tell LE who and where he is and have LE turn up and haul him in for questioning.

This is unexpected behavior from parents with an allegedly abducted daughter.


Where did they say they haven't told LE?

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous said...

I don't get this. They know which family member hasn't been questioned the way they have, they know where he lives, they won't say who/where though in case he runs again.

Ummm why not tell LE who and where he is and have LE turn up and haul him in for questioning.

This is unexpected behavior from parents with an allegedly abducted daughter.

Where did they say they haven't told LE?

April 24, 2015 at 4:08 PM


8:26 in on video two she admits she knows where he is but she isn't willing to say in case he runs again and they can't find him


ima.grandma said...

Peter: Did Isabel threaten to report what had happened in that home? Did she have to be silenced to preserve the rest of the family?  Consider this as a possibility as you read through the case, and listen to the references to the brothers, and the level of concern over them, far more than any concern about what Isabel, the "missing" child, might have experienced. 

I read the below excerpts yesterday before you posted your analysis and similar questions popped into my head. 


Why does Sergio not finish his thought saying what the 14 year old is making sure of?
Sergio: Oh no, they, they just, they just went right now, my oldest son, the 14 year old, he went running around just to make sure um, but I, she's nowhere


He chose to interrupt to stall the conversation after this next question:
Dispatcher: Okay. You're son that's 14, what's his name?
Sergio: (inaudible yelling in background) Uh, I'm sorry, my wife just walked in and, and she's speaking to somebody. I don't know if she's speaking to the police also. She might have been calling on her way. You asked me about my son, what did you ask me?
Dispatcher: Yeah the, the 14 year old that's out looking for her?


I may be reading this next question with my own interpretation but i feel his tone is defensive and one of indignation:
Sergio: Yes. What about him?


He quickly cuts off the call to avoid any further specifics regarding his son after this exchange:
Dispatcher: Um, well hang on a second. Okay, actually I think one of your sons is trying to call. Um, I'm sorry, what was your 14 year old's name?
Sergio: (Taken out by Tucson News Now)
Sergio: My wife just got home and she's kind of hysterical and freaking out, so.

Anonymous said...

She isn't willing to tell the interviewer; she doesn't say LE doesn't know.

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous said...

She isn't willing to tell the interviewer; she doesn't say LE doesn't know.

April 24, 2015 at 4:57 PM


You are interpreting what you think she meant.

She doesn't say i am not telling you referring to the interviewer.

Look only at the words she uses

Anonymous said...

No ma'am. She didn't say law enforcement doesn't know; we are not permitted to say it for her.

Anonymous said...

She doesn't say i am not telling you referring to the interviewer.

She doesn't say "you," but she says "right now," she's not telling, meaning in the interview taking place. She does not say anything remotely resembling "I haven't or will not tell law enforcement."

Picked a Name said...

Her last words to him were, he reports, "no, daddy, I'm tired." YIKES.

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous said...

She doesn't say i am not telling you referring to the interviewer.

She doesn't say "you," but she says "right now," she's not telling, meaning in the interview taking place. She does not say anything remotely resembling "I haven't or will not tell law enforcement."


You are interpreting again.
You are thinking what she means and that's a no no.

Right now could well mean the interview and the interviewer, it could just as well mean that for whatever reason known only to her she isn't saying anything to anyone.

The situation could change at any time say tommorow due to new evidence or information coming to light.

It is for LE to learn where he is and haul him in for questioning.
They may not know his current location since he has run once already.
Since he is family she may have decided to say nothing and thus protect him plus themselves.
If she said it is so and so and he lives at xyz it is entirely possible that said person will either decide to pay them a visit and kill them (if indeed he was involved in the death of Isabel, in which case he has nothing to lose) or, he gets arrested and questioned, spills the beans dropping them right in it and then LE come a visiting and arrest both her and hubby for murder and whatever else they uncover

Anonymous said...

You are interpreting again.
You are thinking what she means and that's a no no.


No, Tania. You asserted she was keeping information from LE and I pointed out to you that her words do not say that. Your "interpretation" was much broader and less substantiated than me saying she was talking about "right now"(words she uses) versus your "isn't saying anything to anyone." (Words she does not use).

If anyone is over- interpreting it is you. I know you can repeat the rules of SA. Can you apply them evenly?

Tom said...

^^ My name is "Tom" so I'll go with that.

Tom said...

They may not know his current location since he has run once already.
Since he is family she may have decided to say nothing and thus protect him plus themselves.
If she said it is so and so and he lives at xyz it is entirely possible that said person will either decide to pay them a visit and kill them (if indeed he was involved in the death of Isabel, in which case he has nothing to lose) or, he gets arrested and questioned, spills the beans dropping them right in it and then LE come a visiting and arrest both her and hubby for murder and whatever else they uncover.


Interesting speculation, but the antithesis of SA.

Apple said...

Anon 2:20
Because she should still be full of life. Unless shes not alive. But she shouldnt still be getting her hair braided. That takes 10 minutes, not years.

Lis said...

To those who are new to statement analysis, keep in mind that we go through a process of examining an entire statement and flag certain known items. These are items that have a high probability of indicating deception. There are many lessons on this in the archives.

The flagged statements form a pattern and the entire pattern is examined. You cannot look at one sentence and decide guilt or innocence.

The Celis' made several statements and appearances and there was a pattern of unexpected statements and behavior that are not typical of the innocent. This indicates that there is a high probability that they are deceptive.

Tom said...

Thanks Lis. Whether my claims are made by someone new to SA or not seems less relevant than the claims themselves. I read Kaaryn Gough's analysis when it appeared on the "Seamus O'Reilly" blog if that clarifies.

I provided specifics for each of the claims I've made.

Those are:

1. The claim that Sergio Celis has knowledge that Isa is dead, and the claim that "Isabel Celis is likely not alive" is based on one use of a past tense verb. He used that past tense verb in response to a past tense question about a specific night. It is within principle to expect a past tense question to be answered with a past tense verb.

2. The claim that Sergio and Becky declared Isa was "kidnapped by a stranger" is flawed because they came from early media reports when Justin Mastromarino a "family spokesperson" was the source of quoted information for the family, not Sergio and Becky.

3. Justin Mastromarino's statements are suspect. He did reference Isa in past tense. He, unlike Becky in the Today Show interview, did not mention "getting Isa back" as a priority. He does cite "we’re just trying to let police do their thing and get as much info as possible," as a priority.

4. Mastromarino was named by police as a suspect on the heels of the Today Show interview. Did Sergio and Becky know he was a suspect? If so, it makes sense why they did not repeat "kidnapped by a stranger" language in the interview. Further, it can explain why they might be deemed deceptive if they have more information about what happened but are unwilling to share specifics on national TV. Please remember, just because they aren't telling us doesn't mean they aren't telling LE.

The claims about Sergio Celis giggling in the middle of his 911 call is not statement analysis. They are unscientific behavior analysis in the vein of "this is how innocent people act." Is it tacky that he is not more serious in the first minutes his daughter is missing? Yes. But is it proof that he committed a criminal act? Lis, You say that "probability" indicates deception and guilt. Probability involves numbers. Can you share specifics?

I've read enough here to know that sometimes well-intentioned people get carried away with "this is how he should act" analysis. There seems to be a lot of contempt for, as some refer to him, "Sergie" Celis, and Becky as well. I question if *some* commenters are now putting the cart before the horse and trying to prove his and Becky's guilt rather than using their statements to get to the truth.

Oh and Tania- you grabbed onto some past tense about Isa in the recent (2015) interview. On the Christina Morris interview, some past tense was flagged and Peter said that after two months, we might expect to hear some past tense. That would seem to apply three years out as well.

Tom said...

The parents did not want to address the 'kidnapper' via media, nor in any other manner in spite of police setting this up for them. A few days passed and media pressure got to them, and they spoke. This is the same as going grocery shopping, having your toddler wander off, and you, the parent, not calling out after your child, but literally finishing your shopping, packing up the groceries in your car, driving home, unpacking them, having lunch, and then, when someone pressures you, pick up the phone and report your child missing.

This is what I'm talking about. A "backstory" that implies they waited days to report their child missing, followed by analysis of a 911 call made the morning she was discovered missing.

Tom said...

the media reporting that the family is not cooperating

I've reviewed articles from the weeks after Isa went missing and can't confirm this. I remember it with Bradley and Irwin. Anybody got a source that shows Sergio and Becky (as opposed to the "family spokesperson" Mastromarino) was deemed as uncooperative?

Anonymous said...

He didn't state they literally waited days to report. It was a metaphor.

Tom said...

Yes, why I chose the word "implies."

Lis said...

Hi Tom, I'm not sure if my post was directed at you- there were some posts by anonymous that seemed to be asking if one or two statements implied guilt, i.e., the 911 caller who said "I'm sorry" twice. This would be something flagged as unexpected but there could be an explanation other than deception and if it were the only thing that was flagged it would not be highly important.

As far as the Celis' are concerned, I can't speak for Peter but I believe he has analyzed all of their statements and may be speaking of his conclusions drawn from all of them, rather than drawing a conclusion based on one statement included in this current article. I don't remember but I think there were several in the past. You are correct that if that were the only time that, for instance, a past-tense reference was used, and that was the only flagged statement the person made, it would not be highly indicative. It would be something to flag and to seek for further information through other statements and evidence.

Sergio's 911 call is an example of what is called the unexpected. His statements are not what would be expected under the circumstances, therefore they are flagged as sensitive- possible indicators of deception. Is laughter considered part of a verbal statement? I would think so but maybe Peter can elucidate.

One thing I missed earlier:

Rebecca Celis: "I feel like he ran and what's going to keep him from running again."

I "feel like" he ran is a weaker statement than "he ran." If you "feel like" something happened, you allow for others (including him) to "feel" differently. When you say you "feel like" something happened, it is not a statement you are strongly committed to.

Maybe he ran, maybe he just moved away? I personally would guess police have thoroughly interviewed him and know where he is, just based on common sense. His statements will stand or fall on their own but indicators on his part would not nullify the indicators on Sergio's part.

trustmeigetit said...

Last year reporters knocked on mom and dads door. Police were back talking to neighbors and asking questions.

This was what they had to say


BECKY: It’s a good thing.. It’s a thing that you know and you see them and you know that there are gonna.. they are trying um im hoping that what.. yah know that’s the thought that they are trying and trying to get what they need out of this and so it’s a positive but has a negative effect too, it does bring back the memories of the whole thing.

SERGIO: "We have a lot of questions that aren't answered, a lot of things that we wish we could just close the book on. But until then, there's so many things that are left so wide open. You know, they did so much digging right here right here, in our house, right here between me and Becky, into our family, you know, we have already been stripped away from our little daughter and we were violated all over again. And we're hoping that this time around maybe someone else can get the attention. And maybe that, you know, all that strength, and all that force, can go somewhere else and we can really get down to a lot of answers,"



What would you say? I would want media attention. Finding my child would be my focus. That wasn't what mom and dad said.

Becky...well she doesn't say much other than it "brings back the memories of the whole thing". So the fact your daughter is missing isn't the issue. It's that the police being back is bringing back memories?

And dads still pissed they focused on him.

So news is back. They get a chance to speak and moms upset they are reminding her and dad talks about what they went thru being a focus.

trustmeigetit said...

Dad also mentions digging and violated.

Those words reay stuck out

trustmeigetit said...

To me, mom and dad seem more nervous about being looked at that finding Isabel.

I have always suspected them.

Also, the neighbor said that that morning she heard two male voices and the Celis dogs barking frantically.

Now, mom and dads room is on the other side of the house, but at least one of the brothers rooms window was right there by Isabel's. He says he heard nothing yet it woke up the neighbor.

I think at least the brother next to isabel would have heard this and woke up.

Also, I think it's very weird that They said that Isabel NEVER slept in her own room but the one time she does, she's kidnapped.


trustmeigetit said...

One last comment.

On Namcy Grace it was said mom left for work just before 7am.

The neighbor heard the frantic barking at 6:30. She was sure of the time because she said she looked at the clock because it was so early.

So based on the fact that most women take time to get ready before work, i think she was awake at 6:30. That makes it even more unlikely that she didn't hear her dogs going crazy.

john said...

Hi trustme,

You pointed out "violated" this is also in the same sentence as "stripped". Subjective internal dictionary? We note that words do not come from a vacuum?

"we have already been stripped away from our little daughter and we were violated all over again"

It would be interesting know what questioned were asked? The reason i say this is. If you didn't know what happened. You wouldn't know she had been "kidnapped".

Apart from saying "our little daughter" they do not mention her name and ask for help finding her.

Peter Hyatt said...

John, yes...

Trust, you are correct about the time.

Peter Hyatt said...

John, yes...

Trust, you are correct about the time.

Tom said...

the media reporting that the family is not cooperating

I've reviewed articles from the weeks after Isa went missing and can't confirm this. I remember it with Bradley and Irwin. Anybody got a source that shows Sergio and Becky (as opposed to the "family spokesperson" Mastromarino) was deemed as uncooperative?


I've looked more and I still can't find anything to support this claim.

Has it been questioned if the 14 yr old who had a little girl sleeping in his room might be sexually assaulting her or has that been dismissed? Did the neighbor specifically exclude a teenager as one of the male voices she heard? Were one or both of the boys interviewed? Have statements about the boys been analyzed? Was it the 14 year old who discovered the window open and screen on the ground outside?

Would parents of a child involved in harming another child turn the child over to police it cover for them? If a wife in a troubled marriage ("our house") can help her husband cover up sexual homicide, it seems she could cover up for a minor child. Would parents announce it to the world or put the blame on the child's adult accomplice? If they covered up for the child would deception be indicated? Might a father react in a way that would cause a social services agency to have concern for the child's safety?

[Sergio:]“It was just before she went to bed”—Kaaryn Gough: "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."

Are we concluding Kaaryn Gough was in error about this?

Thinking out loud. I'm just having trouble seeing Becky's complicity in the scenarios that involve covering up the sexual homicide of her daughter and remaining with her husband. It defies, as Lis said above, "common sense."

trustmeigetit said...

Tom...

Not sure about them not cooperating, but they refused to speak out for the first two weeks. Mom shut herself inside the home and said she was "greiving". Off choice of words. While technically one would greive, I think initially hiding away grieving versus searching for your child and calling out sounds more like a death reaction.

And sadly, parents ignore or cover up abuse and murder every day.

It would sure not be the first time.

Becky to me never seemed to be concerned for what Isabel may be going through. Not one word about her being scared, cold, afraid. He'd words don't reflect a concerned parent.

At least nothing that I have read.

Even above I shared a comment to the media on the 2 year anniversary while the police were back talking to neighbors. Never does she say she wants her daughter found. What she is upset about is that them
Being there brought up the memories of what happened. As if your child possibly being hurt and tortured (if kidnapped) didn't remind you every waking moment.

I also live in Arizona. Mom and dad have done nothing to try to find her. The only time we hear about the case is when police are looking.

And them saying they think a restive is involved but using the excuse he has lawyered up bothers me. If I thought someone kidnapped my kid, I don't care if they hired a lawyer, I will be doing everything short of murdering them to get answers. I think their vagueness is just them attempting to get attention off them. Which also look at dads comment above. Again, police are back and is he focused on finding Isabel? Read it. He's more focused on point fingers else where.

trustmeigetit said...

The parents I always reflect back on for what I would expect is Natalie Holloways parents.

She missed her flight home and they were on a flight hours later to Aruba.

They are the ones that found out about her being with Joren. They tracked him down and tried talking to him. When that didn't work they went to his parents. Dad went with some friends and they broke into crack houses (based on a tip) looking for her. They sought out help and even dug in landfills themselves.

That is what I would do.

The Celis's have not searched. They have not asked for help. They only spoke because they were told not speaking makes them look guilty.

trustmeigetit said...

I found a short video. Gina Dejesus's mother when she had been missing 6 years.

Great example of the difference from
Those we think are guilty.

http://youtu.be/ZSgKSPUVqmU

Says "I" a lot when speaking about how hard it is vs "we" or "you".

Worries about her health and says it gets harder not easier.

Just helps show the difference

Pisces Dreamer said...

I tried to comment earlier, but I don't see it, so I apologize if I'm reposting, but...

To me, Sergio's focus on how Isabel was groomed and dressed, along with his comment about, "Before bed, she was wearing..." sounds almost as if Isabel was dolled up as an offering to someone. Maybe to Justin, maybe to someone else.

"Becky had braided up her hair..."
"Little navy shorts and a little pink tank top..."

It's been noted that Isabel didn't sleep in her own room, except on this night in particular.

What if she was left there as an intentional victim to an abuser?

It would explain the guilty knowledge of the parents, as well as the sexual abuse indicators, and the seeming reluctance to engage the "nameless" relative.

Maybe it's just me, but that's how Sergio's comments come across to me.

I'm thinking of an intentional surrender of his daughter, a la Shaniya Davis.

trustmeigetit said...

Interesting possibility Pisces Dreamer.

I think the older boys must know something... I wonder if they will talk after they are older and out of the home.

kimisan03 said...

"If there was a purpose she should have been found within the first 24 hours. Instead of wasting three days on us. Having us down there 12 hours a piece -- separating us doing everything they possibly could to make our lives that much worse. We just lost our little girl. We haven't been victimized enough by that?"


We just lost our little girl. Not "our daughter is missing."

Peter Hyatt said...

Excellent point, Kimisan03.

Peter

Anonymous said...

No daddy, I'm tired...

I bet she did say that. Poor child.

Anonymous said...

The first time the parents gave a public statement I found the mom believable but not the dad. He would look down a lot and did not keep eye contact with the camera. It was a horrible acting job, then to find out he actually was an amateur performer made sense! I don't understand why she is still with him, it makes me think she does know something now and he's threatening to take her down with him

Anonymous said...

Isabel touches my heart. I need to learn how to engage just my brain for thisclose to home in more ways than one case.

IA

Unknown said...

I believe that the father stayed up watching the baseball game waiting till everyone was asleep. Then sexually assaulted her. I believe he tried to muffle the sound and accidentally suffocated her and then had his cousin dispose of her on his way outta town. Or the cousin did it and disposed of her. But either way it was the family. I also know they have a strong affiliation with their church and maybe the Mom knew of the abuse but Mom didn't report cause she believes that the lord would heal him of such pedophillia!! I pray that woman really truly finds the lord and makes her kids a priority over her sick husband. Sex offenders especially ones with children never ever ever are rehabilitated! She needs to put those kids first! Also she had another child and it is a girl. I saw the father playing kick with a soccer ball while holding a newborn in pink blankets. Becky better keep that one with her at all times


Habundia said...

I listened to the raw 911call.....the father calls and says; iam calling on behalve of a young boy (or something in that range)
Really? He only called because her brother was upset his sister was missong....he didnt call because he missed her

Peter Hyatt said...

Is the in the transcripts???

Habundia said...

The vid of the raw 911 call: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BILNPG-h1fQ

The transcript of this call: http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/tucson.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/aa/9aaeead6-9e46-11e1-8e9c-001a4bcf887a/4fb1dbce13254.pdf.pdf

Habundia said...

The transcript though isnt flawless, there are some 'exact word' errors in it, when i compare both. So you need to see the vid to find the errors.

Mosaic said...

In the Celises' 2015 interview, the kidnappings by Ariel Castro were brought up, who had held 3 Cleveland girls captive for 10 years.

http://www.kgun9.com/news/crime/three-years-after-the-disappearance-of-isabel-celis-her-parents-still-searching-for-answers

Becky's voice had a touch of defiance in it when she said that, but strangely there was no affect palpable related to the hell her child might be going through in case she was kidnapped by an Ariel Castro-like psychopath. Very odd.

This lack of affect on the part of both parents - regarding the possible horror-scenario a still-alive Isabel might be going through after she was 'kidnapped' - stands out in all their interviews. jmo

Mosaic said...

Mosaic said...


(I forgot to add Becky's words from the interview in my previous post):

In the Celises' 2015 interview, the kidnappings by Ariel Castro were brought up, who had held 3 Cleveland girls captive for 10 years.

http://www.kgun9.com/news/crime/three-years-after-the-disappearance-of-isabel-celis-her-parents-still-searching-for-answers

[Interviewer Valerie Cavazos]: "Do you think that might be the case here?"
Rebecca Celis: "Why not? Why couldn't it be? All I can hope for is that she's being well taken care of and that she's safe and that she's okay."



Becky's voice had a touch of defiance in it when she said that, but strangely there was no affect palpable related to the hell her child might be going through in case she was kidnapped by an Ariel Castro-like psychopath. Very odd.

This lack of affect on the part of both parents - regarding the possible horror-scenario a still-alive Isabel might be going through after she was 'kidnapped' - stands out in all their interviews. jmo

Mosaic said...

I found it quite strange when Isabel's parents - several months after her disappearance - eagerly showed Isabel's redecorated room and the presents they had bought for her, saying that 'Isabel will be so happy when she sees this!'
They sounded more like parents who want to surprise their child who will soon return home from summer camp.

I can't wrap my mind around this discrepancy: your child has been abducted, and if she happens to be still alive, is probably going through hell and will be forever traumatized as a result.

When first seeing this video several years ago, I thought: 'Maybe the parents simply blocked all the horrible scenarios out, clinging to a delusional a fantasy instead'. But the more I have since learned about the case, the more my doubts have grown ... jmo