Isabel Celis Murder: The 911 Call

The following is analysis notes by 3 teams of analysts who were asked to seek error in the original analysis from 2012. 

They were told that a suspect has been indicted in the murder of Isabel Celis and the original analysis concluded deception. 

The teams began with this audio of the 911 call.  Although Statement Analysis does not analyze voice inflection, this particular case is considered an exception due to the inclusion of laughter by the caller. 

They analyzed the call itself, and finally, they analyzed a video interview taken shortly after the abduction. Their comments and conclusion follows the video. 

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.

a.  “I”psychological presence in his desire or “want” to report a missing “person” 

b.  “want” creates subtle distance – he does not say “my daughter is missing!” but expresses a “want” for himself.

c.  “person” is gender neutral; does he want to make a “missing persons report” and if so, is this how he sees the victim? “Missing Person” suggests process; waiting, searching, etc.  Formality? 

d.  “my little girl” is ISI and is not his daughter 

e.  “believe” is a weak assertion; is it appropriately weak or inappropriately weak? 

f.    “abduction” is a conclusion; to have a conclusion indicates the subject has processed the information about the “missing person” 

g.  “abduction” is for a reason

h.  “abduction” can be violent

i.    Could “abduction” be a parent’s worst nightmare? We look for this question to be answered in the statement. Either it will be affirmed (+), negated (-) or unaddressed (0) 

j.    Does the subject have any connection to Mexico, where abduction is common?  How long has he been in the U.S.?  If long term, connection to Mexico may be lessened or non existent. 

k.   She was “abducted” from “our” house. 

Context: It is “our” house (shared) while his little girl is “abducted”, or while a “person” is missing. 

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.

The word “child” is related to risk.  

The subject has a “need” – what is the need? Generally, when a caller has a “need”, it is about self and it is immediate. Exception: when a caller has a need for immediate first aid; such as a nurse calling for instruction on how to stop bleeding.  The caller is giving immediate and temporary medical care that must be done at the moment. 

“auh” pause = sensitivity 

The “person” became “my little girl” and now is “a (pause) missing child.” 

What changed in reality?

Is the subject working from script?

 I believe she was abductedfrom my house.

What has changed from his first line?

a.  He  has a “need” rather than a “want” 

b.  Our house is now my house and the victim is a “child.” 

c.  “believe” is weak assertion; it is appropriate (guess work, his deepest fear) or is it inappropriate because he has evidence of an “abduction”?

d.  It is now “his” house (possession) and the missing person is “a” child; not his child. 

Dispatcher: Okay. How old?

Sergio: Six years old.

Dispatcher: Okay is it your daughter or?

This question should have not been necessary.  

Sergio: Yes

No further info offered.  She is not in his house. 

Dispatcher: Why do you think she abducted?

He has reported her “abducted” and he has repeated this claim while she was:

a.  A missing person

b.  My little girl

c.  A missing child 

The change of language of the victim corelated with the change in ownership of the house. 

Context: the biological father of a missing 6 year old has stated his belief that an abduction (not kidnapping, nor missing) has taken place. The natural question follows: Why do you think such a thing?

“Abduction” goes to the conclusion of the initial mystery. This means the subject must either be familiar with abductions (Mexico?), have thought it through (time to process) or has direct evidence of an abduction (ransom note). His priority is his want/need to report an abduction. As part of his priority, it must be for a reason. 

Sergio:  I have no idea. 

Biological father claims to have “no idea” why he went to the conclusion of “abduction” twice. It is very difficult to believe someone claiming to have “no idea” after an assertion. It becomes even more challenging if that assertion was repeated with a change of language. 

If “abduction” was in his mind due to no connection to abductions, Mexico, guilty knowledge, etc, but was due to a parent’s worst nightmare, how could he now claim to have no idea, as the bio dad?

This expression is sometimes used when we are lazy minded or if we do not wish to share our idea. Given the context of a bio dad reporting his daughter missing, the former is not indicated. 

What caused his thinking to begin with a conclusion of the matter? What processing of thought brought him to “abduction” and immediately to “no idea”? 

Why “abduction” rather than “someone took my daughter!”?

We woke up this morning and went to go get her up, start her baseball game and she's gone. 

After expressing that he had “no idea” why he reported to the police an “abduction”, the first word he uses is the plural “we.”

Question:  Who is the "we" here that woke up and "went to" do something?  Please see the information on when his wife left. 

We wokeup this morning and went to goget herup, start her baseball game and she's gone. 

a.  “we”to describe the state of waking up; not that “he” woke up.  This is not expected. We expect the biological father to tell us what he did. This is his child and his phone call. The need to be with “others” is acute. 

b.  “woke up”; this is often associated with alibi building. He could not be involved because he would have to be sleeping (he did not say he was sleeping) in order to “wake” up.  We want him to tell us what he did, what he saw, and what he thinks. Alibi building as a priority should be explored. 

c.  “this morning” is unnecessary and suggests passing of time. This should be a call being made literally moments after seeing her not in her bed.  Recall that “abduction” takes time to process. 

d.  Hina Clause: here he tells the police dispatch why “we” went to her room. This is unnecessaryand very sensitive information. He also does not want to be “alone” with going to her room. Police investigators nor Dispatch would have thought to ask a parent, “why did you go into her room?” unless he had triggered this question by preempting it.  

e.  “went to go” is intention and it slows down the pace. Did he actually go in?  If “we” woke up and “we” went in, did both parents?  He uses intention and does so in the plural, without reporting what he actually did. 

f.    and she's gone. This is to move into “passive voice” which is not a grammatical term, but a psychological term. We look to see not only the employment of passivity, but of a atmosphere of distancing language.  The subject is not reporting, “someone took her”, or “the kidnapper took her” or even “Isabel was abducted by a stranger!” 

It removes all human responsibility for this action. 

Passivity example: 

“I opened the door, turned on the light, and there she was.”  John Ramsey 

We woke up this morning and went to go get her up, start her baseball game and she's gone. 

This is a linguistic lack of urgency.  It is not a commentary on his voice inflection. He is slowing down the pace, and he is scanning over time. He begins with his own alibi, flags time (“this morning”) moves to intention, explains why, without being asked, of his intention, and ends in passive voice. 

No human being is associated with the
abduction. This is his verbalized perception of reality.

We cannot interpret.  Who is the "we" that intended to "go get her up" here?

Why is intention used, and not what he and his wife (?) actually did?

This is evasive and is counting upon us to interpret that he and his wife went to Isabel's room to wake her, but she was not there.  It is not, however, what he said. 

“…went to go get her”; the victim does not yet have a name. 

"go" additional unnecessary word, creating another point of psychological distance and to slow the pace of the interview. 

We wokeup this morning and (  )   went to go get herup, start her baseball game and she's gone

 No human responsibility associated with this. This is a psychological passivity we note. 

Why would a father believe there is an “abduction” without an “abductor”? 

She is not “missing” but she is “gone.” This is indefinite and it is consistent with his interview in which he gives indefinite response to searching result.  

We woke up and went to go get her…the subject is not alone in his waking up, nor in his intention reported. 

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…"

a.  In the description towards the victim, it is the subject and someone else (“we”) that “went to go get her”; but in waking “my my sons”, the subject is alone. He begins his sentence with the pronoun “I” (strong). He alone woke up the boys. 

b.  Stuttering on pronouns

c.  Change of pronoun “I, we”

and my oldest son noticed her window was wide open and the screen was laying the backyard

a.   “noticed” is sometimes used when a person is anticipating or has looked for something. Did not “we” (mom and dad?) notice when they went “to go get her” that her window was “wide open” for their missing child? The subject may be attempting to describe “happenstance” and for his son to experience it. If the son was out searching, "noticed" or happenstance, is not likely given the location (the victim's bathroom). It would be a stand out. This is the subject's verbalized perception; not the son's. 

b.  “laying” is an inanimate object with human body posture. This is often seen when a subject has had physical contact with the inanimate object. 

c.   Our subject had to be sleeping, in order to wake up, and his son “noticed” the window “wide open” and the screen “laying”; 

If the subject wishes for police to interpret him as “sleeping”, rather than stating it, the subject also may wish for police to interpret the “chance happening” of “noticing” the window wide open. 

Victim still without a name. 

Did not “we” notice it when the child was “gone” from her room that the window was "wide" open and the screen out of it?

The human body posture assigned to an inanimate object is often from a subject who physically handled the object.  

"The drugs were sitting on the coffee table" is an indication that by giving "drugs" a human body posture, the subject (speaker) handled them. 

"The gun was lying on the ground..."

Inanimate objects with human connection to subjects is key. 

Before his son “noticed”, we have this:

“ we looked everywhere in the house” and then

“We've looked all around the house, my son…"

What about in Isabel's room?

Looking all around the house, it was only then that his son “noticed” that the window was wide open and the screen was “laying.” 

He had already concluded “she’s gone” prior. Note finality.  

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…"

With the human connection to the screen, by the subject, as well as the happenstance word, “notice”, we ask:

“Did the subject direct his son to the location where he would find the screen?”

Please consider that the father (“we”) went to go get her, stated she was gone: would he not have seen the window “wide” open and the screen out?  Did he orchestrate “another witness” to this, in his son? 

Leakage? Besides the physical connection to the screen, what else or who else was “laying” on the ground or elsewhere? 

We've looked all around the house, my son…"

Dispatcher: Okay, hang on.

(Dispatch interrupts him) 

Sergio:…are running, yeah, my sons are running around the house looking for her.

a.   “yeah” is to agree (“yes”) that they are making an effort to “look for her”

b.  Is this a “need to persuade” how helpful and diligent they are?

c.   “running” is repeated (sensitive) showing urgency. We would not think they were not in earnest or urgency in context. 

Dispatcher: the screen was on the ground outside?

The detail about it lying and being "noticed" is not lost on the dispatcher. 

Sergio: Yes

No further info given, including not reporting this immediately when he made the call. 

One should consider if the subject sent his son out to find the screen. This appears to be as much alibi building as his “we woke up” statement. 

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 manis the middle initial

Misspelling of his “little girl” name;

Note when using an example for “M”, he went to “man.”

Compare this misspelling to the details on the vehicle to follow.  

 Consider this in the context of abduction. 

Dispatcher: Okay, same last name?

Sergio: Yes.

Dispatcher: Okay what's her actual birth date?

What caused the Dispatcher to ask if the victim was his daughter and now to ask for the “actual” birthdate? What might the dispatcher been comparing this to? The dispatcher is likely having issues with the caller's credibility. This began with "missing person" missing "child" and "abduction" that he had "no idea" why he thought so.  

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)

It is redacted. After misspelling his daughter’s name, did he struggle with the birthdate? 

We note the inclusion of “I’m sorry” in all statements. 

Note that this phrase is repeated in the video. 

Dispatcher: Okay. Is mom there also?

This is a "yes or no" question.  Instead of answering it, he moves immediately to the element of time, after beginning with a pause: 

Sergio: Uh, she had just left for work, I just called her and I told herto get her butthome. ("ha ha ha")

a. Element of the sentence is time. The sense of time is very important to him.  Notice the two uses of “just”, which compares timing. 

b. She did not go to work. She “left.”

c. She did not go to work: she “just left”

d. She did not go to work: she “had justleft”

e. Departure of “mom” is very important to him; enough to reference it three times.  The word “just” is a dependent word, indicating that he is comparing timing with another timing. We often find this is actual delays. See the concerns with timing and processing above. 

When did she leave?

Was she with him when “we woke up” and went to go get the victim, specifically?  Or, had she “left” by then? 

The “giggle” may be anything, including nervousness. We note what words (context) produced it. He used the word “butt”, regarding his wife. This is what produced his giggle.  No where else do we find a nervous laugh or giggle. 

Consider “butt” as part of one’s private or sexual parts (with children, the parts covered by your bathing suit) with the analysts concern over sexual inappropriateness. 

Consider also the possible Ingratiation as he is speaking to a female dispatcher.  

Is he attempting to sound modest while calling to report his daughter’s “abduction”? 

Consider this in context with the possible leakage with “man” as well as the juvenile or immature laughing  over his wife’s rear end. This is not expected from a normal father (biological) and suggests further investigation into his past, into his treatment of his daughter and into his associations. 

Much discussion to issues of control and exploration of domestic violence in the relationship. 

He reports what he “told” (strong, one way) his wife. We should carefully consider what else was communicated at this very sensitive time. 

please see the video. 

“left”is to pause at the time of departure, rather than report that she “went to work”, with the mind/language moving forward.  

This is an indicator of missing information.

Would this missing information be about traffic-rushing in context with a missing child? (70%)

Or, is this critically withheld information? (30%)

In context, we also have repetition (sensitivity) on timing, which does not suggest rushing:  “just”, “just” and “had just.”

“had just” is not “just left.”  This is to elongate time. This is consistent with the heavy sensitivity regarding timing for the subject. 

Was this call to the mother made before calling 911?

Is this a time line management? 

Did he wait for her to “leave” before the son “noticed”?

If the mother had left, who is the "we" that "woke up" and "went to go get her" yet did not say he entered the victim's room?

The son did not “find” the window open and the screen pulled out. 

The son “noticed”(this is the subject’s language; NOT the son’s language) the window “wide” open (extra unnecessary persuasive detail) and the screen “laying.” The language did not proceed from the son, but from the father. 

This could indicate not only that the father put the screen there, but he orchestrated his son to find it.  His “oldest” son, which may be “more credible” in the mind of one very nervous and deceptive.

Dispatcher: Okay, mother.

Sergio: But she was…

We do not know what refutation/comparison he was going to give due to this disruption. 

Dispatcher: What kind of vehicle is she going to be en route back in?

Analyst with dispatch experience:  her concern over this call likely caused her to "return to book" and ask standard questions to keep the flow of information.  

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.

This answer goes beyond the boundary of the question. This answer is elevated in importance. 

The screen, which could be a major clue to a father of a missing child, caused his pace to immediately cease and give a one word answer. 

Unrelated, he gives significant detail on the vehicle and the route his wife would be taking.

This is Ingratiation: to show how “helpful” one is. 

Also note the tangent of moving the topic from the victim (who gets few words to this point) to something unrelated which produced more words. 

Sometimes deceptive people will stay on a topic they are comfortable with and give too many details or go beyond the boundary of the question, thinking they will sound helpful and credible. 

The description of the vehicle, where she is coming from and the road she will be taking, is additional and unnecessary information. 

Dispatcher: Okay. How tall is she?

Sergio: She is five two.

Who is?

Besides being directly asked, he does not use his daughter's name.  This is a distancing that can be depersonalizing. 

The subject gave abundant detail after his giggle and he is not thinking of the victim (his daughter) at this point. This should be compared with the information that the one piece of tangible evidence of an abduction produced: “yes.” 

Dispatcher: No the, I'm  sorry, you're daughter

Sergio: Oh my daughter. Um…forty inches. Thirty, yeah 36 to 40 inches.

parroted response. 

The dispatcher did not ask for the color of the vehicle, the location of departure, nor even the route taken. These were all offered by the subject.  The subject is thinking of his wife; not of the victim. “oh, my daughter” 

Dispatcher: Okay. Is she black, white, or Hispanic?

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

He has not used the victim’s name to this point. 

“Clear eyes” produced a question of clarity for the dispatch. This is a normal question and it avoids interpretation. 

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.

“sure” is to agree or acquiesce to Dispatch (police), consistent with ingratiation. 

Dispatcher: Hazel, okay. And you said she's about 40 inches tall.

Sergio: Yeah.

For some, “clear eyes” (“claro ojos”) which is sometimes used by adult males in a complimentary way when one is attracted to a female. 

Dispatcher: Do you remember what she was wearing last night when you saw her?

Nervousness might have caused her to not ask, "...the last time you saw her..."  Instead she went to "last night when you saw her"

Sergio: Uh, before she went to bed I believe she was wearing little navy blue shorts and, and a pinkuh, a pink like little uh, tank top type of a shirt.

He was asked “when he saw her” and immediately used a pause or stutter, and went to a time “before” she went to bed. This is indicative of a time he may have seen her after she went to bed. Dispatch did not use the word “before”, but his mind went immediately to this period of time, what she was wearing and the halting or stuttering. 

His time period is not when she went to bed, but specifically before she went to bed.  "She" continues to be without a name. 

“little” is a term that is not expected here. A six year old is “little”; therefore this additional detail of the size of the outfit is unexpected.  This may sound like one describing a scantily clad woman or one of whom was tempted. It is the exposure of skin that "little" clothing reveals.  It is what his brain produced. Note that child sexual abusers, if freely speaking to a friendly audience will describe a child in adult like sexual terms. This includes, “the walk” or“she was flirting…asking for it…”etc. 

Note the stutter is produced whendescribing her clothing. 

Consider the repetition of “little” with regard to her clothing makes it important to him. This may be alike it was little for her size and she was wearing revealing clothing. She may have been dressed size appropriate, but he saw the clothing as “little” in both her shorts and in her top, which he further described as “tank” top. Child sexual predators often “see” as tantalizing what is not considered sexualization of a child.  Unless ill fitting, this is indication of what is on his mind "before" she went to bed: clothing that was "little" on top and in shorts.  This is not expected language from a male over a child. 

Note, without the name, he continues to depersonalize the victim. She was a “missing person” in some context, a “missing child” in another, “my little girl”, “my daughter” in a direct question and without a name while giving significant and alarming detail on her clothing. 

Question to Analysts:

Question:  Are you concerned about possible sexual abuse by the father?

Answer: Yes. (unnamimous) 

The language is  concerning; particularly given the sensitivity indicators noted thus far and the avoidance of the victim’s first name. 

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.

Investigators should consider why this location entered his language beyond the boundary of the question. 

Time noted as element; “late” 

Dispatcher: Uh-hm

Sergio: You know, about 10:30 last night. (clears throat)Everyone took their showers and they all went to bed. 

Out of anything he could tell police, he went to “showers” (see possible connection with sexual abuse)

He did not say, “The kids showered and went to bed.” 

Note unnecessary emphasis of “all” went to bed. This leads to, 

“who did not go to bed?” 

In his account, his daughter, the victim, was dressed in her “little” navy shorts and “little” pink tank top after her shower. A “little tank top” allows for skin to be exposed. Since they  showered, this would be after the shower, while he has the need to report “all” went to bed.  This is what is in his mind as he is describing the victim, whose name he has not yet used outside of the misspelling. 

He specifically answer the question as to what Isabel was wearing "before" she went to bed. Here, he gave the unnecessary emphasis of "all" going to bed, yet his timing on the other question was "before." 

Next, note the emphasis of "even" and the time in which he could alibi for himself: 

I even was in the living room watching uh, the Diamondbacks game at midnight.

The father is offering his alibi (again) and uses the unnecessary emphasis of “even” here. The Dispatcher did not accuse or provoke him into offering this. 

“Even” as “in addition to…”? 

Dispatcher: Uh-hm.

Sergio: And I fell asleep and I never heard anything weird. 

The subject is offering an alibi as being asleep. 

Though when the one significant detail of an abduction was offered, he only responded with a single word (“yes” to the window screen). 

Sergio: And I fell asleep and I never heard anything weird. 

What did he hear that was not weird to him? 

Was she “gone” already? 

So I was like just on the…

Dispatcher: Okay.

Sergio:…other side of the wall from her.

Whatever he heard, that was not “weird” may have been coming from her room. This is a signal that he heard something, indeed, but it was not “weird” (unusual, unexpected). 

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?

Note the element of time in his answer: 

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…

“just” compares two or more objects; here it is the element of timing that is so sensitive. 

Note the need to explain why his son went running around.  The dispatch or police would not have thought to ask, “why would you son run aroud to make sure…?” This is a very sensitive sentence and may be related to:

“notice” and “laying” of the “wide” window and the screen. It speaks to planting and orchestrating.,

“She’s nowhere” is possible admission of knowledge of her abduction.  

This is for a biological parent to “give up” where natural denial should have been. See the you tube video for his length of time for searching for her: it is ceaseless. 

The halting on pronouns is often an indicator of deception. 

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 walkedin 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?

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: redacted

Sergio: My wife just got home and she's kindof hysterical and freaking out, so...

She “walked” in

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:Bye-bye

Analysis Conclusion:

Q.  Is the subject deceptively withholding information regarding what happened to the child?

A. Yes (Unanimous)

Q. Does the language of the subject suggest possible sexual abuse of the child?

A. Yes. (Unanimous) 

As you consider the above analysis, now watch the following video. 

  Listen for "Linguistic Disposition."

LD is how a subject verbally views another.  In this case, we expect to hear:

The parents of an abducted child call to Isabel, unprompted. It is parental instinct. 

The parents of an abducted child call to Isabel's abductor, to treat her well and return her. 

The parents of an abducted child to talk about what Isabel is going through. 

We do not expect to hear much about what they, themselves are going through.  The parental concern, coupled with utter impotence of exercising parental instinct, puts the focus upon the victim. We expect Isabel and the abductor to be the priority, focus and scope. 

We do not expect to hear parents make any excuse for not calling out to their daughter and addressing the abductor, from the very first moments of her abduction.  

We do not, at this time, expect any language of having processed or accepted the victim's death.  "Healing" should not be in the vocabulary if they believed at this time that their daughter was being held by an abductor. 

Their own comfort level, including anything in relation to searching for the victim, and getting out the word, is paramount. There should be no hesitation and no qualification. 

Regarding the polygraph, even when police caution, "don't talk about it", they know that those who pass it tell everyone.  

Question:  Does this video show parents of an abducted child calling to the child, the abductor and doing everything they can to facilitate her return?

Video Observations by the teams:

The word "healing" was flagged by all. For the parent of a missing child so early on, and without any knowledge of her death to be "healing" means they have processed or accepted her death.  This is not the expected reaction from biological parents unless police have specifically given them details to cause them to begin to accept the death, or a good deal of time has passed.  

Video focus upon self, their comfort level; not the victim's. 

No concern for the missing child expressed by either parent. 
No concern for what Isabel might be going through. 

Linguistic priority is not the victim, nor the abductor. 

No unprompted call to Isabel

No unprompted appeal to the abductor.  

No help asked

Ingratiation, emotional manipulation.  

Pity (linguistic disposition) towards self, but not towards Isabel. 

Defensive 

No denial issued when accused. What do you say?  "Nothing." 

They said they were “healing” while the victim is not found.  

He may even "sing", as if this is courageous. 

They did not address what Isabel may have been experiencing in the hands of her captor (s) For biological parents, this is  unexpected. 

They have processed the info: have they accepted death?

Expectation of searching success unending (father) 

Fund raising

Abductor not addressed

“ransom” to “reward” re money. 

Reluctance to go public while their daughter was abducted--how could any parent not go public from the moment they can possibly make an impact?

They said there was a limit to their cooperation w police 

Refused to issue denial. 

Refused to answer polygraph question noted. 

They needed interviewer to get them to call out to the missing child.  

They have not been out calling to her or trying to negotiate with the abductor because it is not emotionally comfortable for them. It goes against Mom's personality.  

Conclusion: 

The video affirmed the analysis. 



A suspect has been indicted in her death.  

He reportedly offered the location of Isabel's remains in exchange for minor burglary charges being dropped. 

Pedophiles seek each other out. They are adept at locating one another, trading child pornography and information that allows them to "relive" any sexual experience or arousal. 

The arrested suspect has denied killing Isabel. 

The father reported an "abduction" of his child; not that Isabel was missing. He had gone to the conclusion of the matter. 

Will the suspect identify others within his contact realm?
If so, will he or any others reveal  a connection to the father?

When someone speaks publicly, there is an expectation that some will believe the subject and some will doubt. 

All here are judicially innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.  The subject has not been charged in the death of his daughter.