Sunday, October 7, 2012

Sergio Celis: Statement Analysis of Complete 911 Call

Deceptive Call to 911 
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. 
Sergio: I have no idea. We 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?
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 she 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.
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.  
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.
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.
Dispatcher: Uh-hm.
Sergio: And I feel asleep and I never heard anything weird. So 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.  
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.
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.  


Anonymous said...

I'm confused on above post, anon. ????

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:15, not sure what you are getting at.

Apple said...

She is back and must be bored this am.

Anonymous said...

Apple must be a jarnelist that thinks it is a spy working for the common good. Lol!

Ivy said...

I still wonder reading his "I have no idea" whether he interpreted her question as asking "why, do you think, was she abducted?" rather than "why do you think she was abducted". I agree that you have to look at his answer and not interpret for him and look for the expected answer to the question. This site often emphasizes the problem of compound questions, etc. because of the ambiguity caused by multiple correct answers. This question is not compound, but I think you know what I'm getting at. The intuitive "correct" interpretation is "what makes you think she was abducted." It is obviously problematic that he is saying he has no idea why he thinks she was abducted and in the same sentence says that the window was open screen outside, and they're looking for her etc. -- pretty contradictory and completely unexpected. It is possible he interpreted correctly, told the operator he did not know why he thought his daughter was kidnapped and then went into reasons why he thought she was kidnapped. I do not interpret for him. If he did in fact "hear" the operator ask him "why" she was abducted rather than "what makes you think she was abducted", and answered "I have no idea" to that question, I still think it would be telling. He states the conclusion that she was abducted, and interprets the operator's question as asking for further conclusion about the motives of the kidnapper. He assumes the operator has accepted his conclusion of kidnapping and is now focused on "why" she was kidnapped -- which, if this is staged, would be something he might be focused on (see "small foreign faction" that did not respect the government, but wanted $118k -- such complicated reasons when these crimes when they occur are usually about something more basic). It reminds me of the answer about Becky's height. The operator is obviously asking him about Isabel's height, but they are talking about Becky, and he interprets inappropriately and answers the "wrong question" correctly, showing his mindset -- the focus is off. To me it shows how much even with scripting, the spontaneity of the 911 call even with expected questions can reveal so much information. Just an opinion obviously. I mean no offense to anyone bringing this up again.

VMG said...

Anonymous 6:15am - You do realize this is a 'Statement Analysis' site, don't you?
Also, I don't understand why some of the other posters feel the need to resort to name calling rather than simply stating they have no clue what this guy's talking about, or.. if you don't care to know, why say anything at all.
Back to anonymous 6:15am, perhaps read the post describing why a naturally 'suspicious' person cannot do statement analysis??

Anonymous said...

I am not a "naturally" suspicious person. In fact, several events have to occur before I come to the conclusions of which I have come to.

I once lived near in a town located near a military base like Tuscon. Volunteering to pass out flyers for a missing children's org. is the worst thing possible. You move, they move.

My first clue it would never end should have been when a homeowner selling his house gave me the number to the FBI instead of selling me his house. The second clue should have been repeated attempts to take my vehicle at my offramp. The third clue should have been being ripped off by the posse that utilizes these ripoff rackets. My other clues include having my dentist investigated, the other leaving without warning, death threats in the mail, people entering the homes where they aren't invited as a means to "investigate" and having them drive 500 miles to threaten my father.

STalking in limos is only a minor part of the problem where I live. I am not the only one being victimized by the stalkers.

Perhaps they were hoping to capture some ZEtas with this abduction. It didn't happen cuz they were long gone!

We have linquists in my area. They work on these cases, two.

In fact, they have moved into the state of Arizona hoping to teach them a thing or two.

Check the news there. A cross-burning on the lawn of an interacial couple. The black guy was in awe as he thought the '60s were over. Lol! Guess again, they are back and for use to instruct the youth.

Ivy said...

I will add that it has also always struck me as strange that when asked if anyone weird has been around the house he goes into recounting the events of the night before, down to his watching the game and hearing nothing. The account always seemed odd by itself, especially the detail of the showers and for a different reason his stating that he watched the game (too much information, explaining why he's not in his room, alibi) but looking at what he was asked about weird people being around, and seeing him respond by recounting in auch setail the events if the night before makes me wonder if someone weird (uncle?) was there. I recall the uncle speaking of Isabel in the past tense in the initial statement and I thought there was a question about what "family" was there. Regardless, I think this recounting of the events of the night before without being asked about it sugests both scripting and that the time period he describes is very sensitive concerning what happened to Isabel. I also think the first words out of his mouth sound very scripted and includes details like age but no name. Reminds me of "we have a kidnapping" from Patty. And he repeats much of the same language after the transfer.

Lucy said...

"I told her to get her butt home" has always bothered me. That language would be appropriate for a teen out past curfew, but never a spouse. And this is not a slip made by a nervous parent with a missing child. In a healthy spousal relationship, that language wouldn't exist. He needs to be the dominant to her subservient. He needs to control her. He is the boss of that family, and he demands obedience.

It also bothers me that Isa regularly slept in her brothers' room. This is abnormal for a child with her own bedroom and a teenaged, opposite sex sibling. Why did she feel the need to sleep with her older brothers? Did she need their protection from something or someone?

This is an unhealthy family. I wonder what Isa'a brothers would say if allowed to speak freely.

Anonymous said...

@ anon 9:57

You from Texas? Or, are you just another fish looking to feed dogs? Hoping to cash in on missing/murdered children? Or, do you simply have a politcal agenda?

Hoping to convince others they have schizophrenia so you can cash in on medication? Or, simply hoping to cash in on transporting those medications? Maybe you're just another biker thinking it's 1968 and watched way too many worn out '80s movies thinking you're made of steel and bulletproof.

We're "watching" you, too. Newsflash! Kennedy has been dead a long, long,long,long time.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:46 you are aware this is a STATEMENT ANALYSIS blog? In statement analysis I, we, hello along with any other words said are important, because this is a statement analysis blog.

Ivanna-Anna said...

Anonymous 6:15 commented that Celis isn't the only one who says "sorry." That's true, he isn't the only one, BUT he is in a situation where should NOT feel apologetic. He is phoning 911 to get help urgently.

I agree, when I read "I have no idea" I assumed Celis interpreted the question as "why, do you think, was she abducted?" rather than "why do you think she was abducted".

deb said...

Excellent analysis as usual- I have no doubt they did it and why they are continuing to get away with it is par for the course but I just want to know how she died- would beckey have really covered up for her husband if she died being sexually abused? Main question is tho- how could the mom have been ok- by that 911 call- Ok and on board with cover up- which she obviously was. That only leavses two possibilities- she hated the child or she knew isabel's fate days earlier- and the faux-abduction night had been pre-planned days - at least- in advance. So, I think it rules out accident or unexpected death. For instance Jon Benet was an 'accident"- and as would be expected her parents were a lot less composed by the time of report and police involvement- and acted wierd and in shock for days, weeks. Becky and husband, on the other-hand- were stone cold (she obviously faked 'hysterical")- which implies- Isabel she was "gotten rid of"-and it was planned/expected.

SELLA35 said...

@Peter-- I notice that Sergio says the screen WAS "laying".... when the dispatcher asks him about the screen he doesn't say was laying, he asks "the screen was on the ground"?....... I am trying to remember about inanimate objects that lay and sit. I recall we had other statements on other cases that the item would lay or sit. Can you explain this again, for me? Thanks so much. Sella

~gwen said...

Fantastic analysis. I do have a question, though it's not really relevant to the analysis. You've mentioned several times that use of the word "told" indicates a more forceful interaction...perhaps an argument. I can see how this could be the case. However, I often use the word "told" in the course of conversations that don't really fit your view of the use of the word. For instance, say I'm relaying information to a friend that I heard from someone else, I might say, "So and so told me that you lost your job". Or how about "I told the truth" or "She told me a secret". I just don't see that as a word that is only used in the way you have described. Of course, it can be indicative of a more forceful, argumentative interaction, but not always. Am I completely wrong here?

Dad is innocent said...

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.

Ivy said:
looking at what he was asked about weird people being around, and seeing him respond by recounting in such detail the events if the night before makes me wonder if someone weird (uncle?) was there.

Ivy also said:
asking "why, do you think, was she abducted?" rather than "why do you think she was abducted"

Yes I agree, He knew why he thought she was abducted, but like all innocent parents, he had no idea why someone would do that to his child..... But as statement analysis teaches us, he did have an idea as to why.
What was troubling his mind? Weird people being around. Was there an uncle at the brother's baseball game that was weirdly too physical with the daughter? Was daddy concerned about the uncles intentions?

Anonymous said...

An arrest was just made in her case and it wasn't Sergio Celis.