Sunday, October 29, 2017

Sergio Celis: Father of Murdered Isabel Emergency Call

The remains of Isabel Celis, 6, have been found and with the passage of time, the cause of death is unknown. 

It is best to start an investigation at the first moment where one speaks and tells police, "What happened."

This is an Emergency Phone call.  In the United States, it is the number "911."

For formal training go to for law enforcement seminars and at home training for officers. 

In some locales, the caller will give information, only to have the operator transfer the call to a different locale.  This will impact the anlaysis. 

Voice Inflection 

Statement Analysis is the science of deception detection.  "Experts" claim, after the fact, to "know" someone is lying by the voice inflection.  This is not science, nor is it sustainable.  We have criminal analysts analyze, that is, break down to small parts, the words of an emergency call without hearing the audio. This helps to avoid bias. 

Having said this, once the analysis is complete, listening to voice inflection, or using subordinated disciplines including handwriting analysis and body language analysis.  These are used as additions and can often help dictate tactics within strategy.  When "Reid" is taught in unbalance, we have a law enforcement professional sitting too close, concentrating so heavily on body posture that he may miss an embedded confession. Yet, police often are intuitively good in body language analysis due to sheer volume of contact, beginning in patrol.  

Adding formal training to the 100% accuracy of analyzing a statement is to take the professional to new levels of excellence. 

When Isabel Celis went missing, what did her father, Sergio Celis, tell us about what happened? 

Analysis of an emergency call is the same as analyzing an interview in which the subject is asked, "What happened?" knowing that the subject has not already been interviewed.  

We begin with the presupposition of innocence.  This is a "de facto" innocence; not judicial.  In the United States, we have a presumption of innocence.  Sergio Celis is judicially innocent in the death of his daughter, Isabel.  

This is the same approach to all. It is done in order to facilitate deception detection.  We believe and hold to the expectation that the caller does not possess guilty knowledge of that which is to be reported and his motive is to facilitate information for a successful conclusion. 

This is also important since 90% or more of deception comes from deliberately withheld or concealed information, rather than outright lying. 

Therefore, even with 100% technically truthful statements where there is deception, line by line, we are very likely to obtain reliable information as to what happened.  In other words:

Everything the person said was true.  They simply left out that they did the crime.  

"I heard a gun shot and found my wife on the floor, bleeding from the head..." may be 100% technically truthful. 
He did hear a gun shot. 
He did "find" her on the floor.
Her head was bleeding. 

There is but one problem:  he left out the fact that he shot her. 

Deception detection would find out this missing info, but Content Analysis would tell the investigator what happened, why, when and how, and the forensics are likely to match.  

Question:  What does Sergio Celis tell us what happened to Isabel? 

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

 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. This is to remove the identity of Isabel and make her, in his verbalized perception of reality, a "person"; in fact, a "missing person" just like the thousands of missing persons reported every year.  This is "distancing language" and it indicates a psychological need for blending Isabel in with many others.  It is the opposite of a biological father's instinct. 

The first identity of the victim is as a "missing person." 

Next in the order of priority she is: 

2.  "My little girl

We will continue to view the names, titles and connections for the victim to himself.  

As a "missing person", she is his "little girl."  She does not yet have a name.  

3.  What happened?

He "believes" she was "abducted" from "our" house.  

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 which would make the weak assertion appropriate.  "What makes you think she was abducted?" is a natural question and if your 6 year old little girl was missing, you'd likely have a reason to assert as much. 

Why did he think she was "abducted"?

Next, let's consider the word "abducted" rather than kidnapped.


Because I am concerned about Narrative reporting.  

Narrative reporting is what investigators  street cops, child protective services, insurance professionals, etc,  call "story telling."  

It is "scripted language" which indicates pre thought.  

Why is "abducted" possibly scripted language?  

Why not "kidnapped", the more active taking of a child for unknown reasons?

  An abduction is conclusionary and does not hold the same meaning as "kidnapped" where ransom and contact may be expected.  

An abduction is that which is used when motive has been determined. 

That a father of a missing child could jump to this conclusion should alert investigators to withheld information

It is interesting to look back upon the interviews they did on TV about their "abducted" child. 

They made it through an entire interview without using the following words:


Next now note also that he does not call it "my house."  This is significant. It is not like someone on an emergency call is going to pause and stop to think, "Hmm, which word should I use?  My house?  Our house?"

It is instinctive.  

This is elevated in an emergency, and sometimes referred to in court as "excited utterance."

The speed of processing for the brain is very fast and gives us our reliability. 

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 especially since parenting a child is a highly personal ("I" and "my") relationship.  It can be something as minor as a bad report card to something found in the context here:

a murdered child. 

We now look back upon this 911 call knowing that Isabel was a victim of homicide. 

This is not a huge point but it is noted and it is an "affirming point" about the analysis of a "missing person":  the psychology of "crowd" much like the kindergartener who says, "yeah, but everyone was doing it.

Dispatcher: What's the address?
Sergio: 57 or 5602 E. 12th Street.
Dispatcher: Okay. Stay on the line for Tucson Police.
Sergio: I will.

Here we see the transfer which will now cause a repetition of "what happened."  The first was part of the free editing process where the version is most "pure."  The second is now added to the first, and we may reduce some sensitivity indicators, such as repetition, because it is necessary to repeat information. 

Is he working from script?  versus Is he working from experiential memory?
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. 

Let's consider this, but also keep in mind that "hello" is part of a segway in the transfer. 

We do not like to hear a greeting in the beginning of an emergency police call.  

Ingratiating Factor 

 Police are "the good guys." 

When one has guilt, one may not wish to be seen on the opposing side of police.  That would mean "bad guy" status. 

We call this the "Ingratiating Factor" in analysis.  Here's an example:

When DeOrr Kunz jr went missing, his father made a lengthy emotional statement praising police and searchers, in great detail, for failure to find his son.  He was deceptive in his interviews about what happened to his son and this may have been the psychological need to be seen as "the good guy" because he was "the bad guy."

Context is key. 

In a missing child case, failure to find the child is failure. 

Billie Jean Dunn initially praised police for not finding Hailey, but when they turned and focused on her failure to tell the truth (including failing her polygraph) she attacked them openly including the polygraph examiner.  Still, she refused to say, "I told the truth."  That would have been an outright lie; something most liars will avoid. 

 There is a psychological reason for the Ingratiating Factor:  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."

Here is a change: 
Person:  gender neutral
"little girl" specific gender
"child" is often used when at risk.  While "missing" she is a "person" (non specific) and "child"

Reporting a "missing child" is something that many people do in the United States every week.  The victim is still one of many.  

This is not expected.  

This is most unexpected by a biological father.  This "distancing language" is heard by the police operator.  

Dispatcher: Okay. How old?
Sergio: Six years old.
Dispatcher: Okay is it your daughter or?

What made the Dispatcher ask this question is the formal, distancing language of reporting a "missing child."  It is unnatural and warranted clarification. Dispatch had to ask this question.  
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 very good and strong reasons to say such a thing.  

She has confirmed that she is speaking to the child's father, so to go all the way to a conclusion, the father needs to now tell police why he believes this.  

Dispatch now awaits details that point to an abduction, including broken windows, doors, ransom note, former threats from gangs, disputes, or anything else, even remotely related.  Otherwise, it may sound like a "script" of

1.  Missing Person
2.  Missing Child  
3.  Abduction 

He must have a reason for this.  He is the father and the victim is his daughter.  
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…"

There is a wealth of information here.  

Let's look at it again:

Here is why he thinks he should report an "abduction" of a missing "person" and "child":  

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 a shocking response.  This is not only "not expected" by a parent who has twice used the word "abducted" but indicates that he was not expecting to have to explain his reasoning. 

"I have no idea" buys him time to think, as well. 

  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. 

It is not only untrue, but it shows a need to pause and think.  
2.  Please note that he reports that "we" woke up; not "I" woke up.  This is an indication of deception. This is coming from the biological father who has instincts within him of the "three P's of masculinity"


These are instincts which are reflected in language.  Please remember that the Dispatcher needed to ask,

'Is this your daughter we're talking about?

Pronouns are instinctive.  They are "pre thought."  He, as father, making the report of his own daughter, should tell us what he did.  This is the "crowd" element of guilt in language.  

 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."
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). 

This need to tell us "why" he went to get her up is unnecessary information.  As he works through his account, he anticipates police asking him,

"Why did you go into her bedroom?"

This is not a question any of us would feel the need to pose. 

This is where formal training and tremendous exposure to volume of statements, over many months, comes together for the analyst. 

Why did Sergio Celis have a need to preempt a question about why he went into his daughter's bedroom?

This is an example of one staying to the script.  

None of us would even think to ask "why" in such a setting.  Only one who is not speaking from experiential memory would be concerned with making the pieces fit together.  
This is a very important point and it is labeled with our highest recognition of sensitivity in language.  It is how liars are often caught in their own web. 
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.  

This may indicate that he orchestrated the search.  

I, we looked everywhere in the house and my oldest son noticed her window was wide open and the screen was laying the backyard. 

The word "noticed" is to indicate something seen that was not looked for.  It is happenstance or an incidental. 

When one has the need to use the word itself in an open statement, it is often an indication of deliberate action and expectation. 

We are now concerned that his "oldest" (specific, most 'reliable' due to age) did not "find" it, but only "noticed" it.  This is an indication that the caller led him to find it. This would have been a very important question to pose to him in the interview. 

This is a missing child case. He should have said that the screen is off her window, not:

his son
his oldest son
and only "noticed" it.  This slows down the pace with additional and unnecessary information.  

There is more, however, in just this point to suggest Serigo orchestrated this. 

Question:  Is there anything to affirm that Sergio led his oldest son to "notice"?

Answer:  Yes. 

The body posture of the screen is given.  

When an inanimate object is given human body posture, it is an indication of human connection from the speaker. 

Screens do not sit nor do they lay down.  People cause them to. 

"...the screen was laying..."

When taken with "noticed", it indicates that Sergio put it there and directed his son to find it. 

Dispatcher: Okay, hang on.
Sergio:…are running, yeah, my sons are running around the house looking for her.
Presentation Versus Truth. 

This is similar to the "good mother" in analysis or the "good guy" designation. 

Of course everyone is running around looking...we would not think to the contrary.  

Q.  What calls our attention to searching?
A.  the caller's own words. 

We would not have had a doubt about it if he had not introduced it.  

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?

The Dispatcher does not include the inanimate object's body posture in the question. 
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?

This may be more than just cultural.  The operator showed sensitivity about his language which led to the need to affirm the relationship status.  We see further hints of this in the language 
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)

We always take note of the words, used for any reason, of

"I'm sorry" in an emergency call.  


By themselves, they do not indicate guilt, but they are suggestive of it, and they often enter the language of those with guilt, sometimes in unintended deaths. He may really be "sorry." 
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. (giggle)

It is impossible not to notice the "giggle" he uses here on an emergency phone call to report his child has been abducted. 

Let's first examine the language and then the "giggle." 

It is important to learn:  What produced the giggle?
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.  

He has the need to portray himself as "taking charge" for the good of his daughter. 

This is the "good guy" principle which belies the status of "bad guy."

Next, this is buttressed by his wording "get your butt home." 

He has a need to be seen as the good guy.  This is not good. 

Now, what about him giggling?

He did not give a nervous laugh anywhere else in the call.  

Even if it was a nervous laugh, like a habit of speech, we note what produces it and what does not produce it. 
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. This is strange enough but consider the words that produced this:


Investigators listening this for the very first time should have immediately been concerned with possible sexual abuse of the victim. 

The portrayal is of one so chaste that even "butt" is extreme language.  

It is very similar to the projection we often see in language of virtue signalers today. 

Ashley Judd is an actress who went to extremes over an inappropriate joke.  She went full force into inappropriate language, costumes and presentation, tears, cursing, and even a hat formed to female genitalia to "protest" what?

To protest the use of inappropriate words. 

Everyone has either said something inappropriate, or has heard something inappropriate and was able to control their reaction.  

Ashley Judd went into "action" over it, with raging anger.  


She is not a politician. 

She is not in need of money. 

She does not appear to be running for office. 

Question:  What would cause such an unmeasured and extreme reaction?

Answer:  guilt 

A year later we learned that she had protected a rapist and took out her emotion upon another.  

She raged against a single joke, but was silent for many years, over an assault.  

She sought to "prove" how deep her virtue ran because she had a need to appear to have virtue. 

This is the point in Statement Analysis.  

          Verbalized Perception of Reality versus Realty 

The "great mother" is often found to have child protective history. 
The "caring husband" is often found to have been abusive. 
The man who "sees" racism everywhere seethes with racism in his own heart, which comes out in the language.  

It is the need of presentation.  

The mother who expressed concern and wearing down of self, looking for her missing daughter, actually made sure that she did not miss her favorite afternoon soap opera. 

The father of a "missing" child gave a great performance demanding, publicly, that Nancy Grace come to Waterville, Maine and "walk in his shoes" as she "suffered."

When Nancy Grace producers showed up at his house, he hid in the bathroom and refused to come out.  

It is presentation versus reality. 

Sergio Celis had a need to portray himself as so sexually moral that even the use of the word "butt" produced "embarrassment" for one so "righteous."

We later learned that child abuse investigators made a deal with him that he would leave the house while they investigated concerns of abuse.  

He giggled while reporting his daughter missing, while he is being deceptive.  The context of giggling was telling his wife to get her "butt" home, which tells us of the lack of urgency.  

This is what "following the script" looks like, rather than experiential knowledge. 

Question:  Besides this giggle and the word "child", Is there anything else in the language that suggests police investigate possible sexual abuse?

Answer:  we continue to listen...

Dispatcher: Okay, mother.

Now his wife is appearing to be "bad" or reluctant to get home quickly and help locate the missing person or missing child.  He then had a need to refute this: 
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.
When I first analyzed this, readers wrote about being "creeped out" by the language here.  They noted that his "little" girl wore "little" shorts and a "little" tank top as if anything else would fit a 6 year old.  

It indicates focus where we do not want to hear focus.  

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, especially after "child" and the 'righteous giggling' over "butt." 
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?

Note that "little" is not part of the vocabulary of the Dispatch in spite of it being easier (and normal) to parrot when seeking confirmation. 
Sergio: Oh no.
Dispatcher: Have you guys…
Sergio: Hu-uh
Dispatcher: …been having any weird phone calls, anything like that, somebody hanging around?

Remember:  he reported "abduction" so it is on the mind of the Dispatcher.  

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.

He could tell us anything he wishes.  He cannot tell us everything or it would never end.  

He reports what is most important to him.  This is another indicator of concern over sexual abuse. 

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…

Alibi establishment. 

He heard something but they were not "weird."

We have a need to "normalize" the night which tells us that this was anything but normal to him. 

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

The need to explain why, again the older son, went running outside is not something police would have ever thought of asking.  

This is a signal of deliberately concealing information.  

This is to affirm that he orchestrated which son would find the screen.

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?

The Dispatcher is concerned about the children. 
Sergio: He's in the garage. He's just out in the garage just waiting for…

The dependent word "just" is used to compare with something else. This is an indication that Sergio directed him there.  
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 possible guilt. Here is his second use. 

Dispatcher: Yeah the, the 14 year old that's out looking for her?

His answer to this question shows that he is very concerned about any inquiry of his "oldest" son:  
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 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.

What does Sergio Celis tell us about what happened to Isabel?
Analysis conclusion:

Sergio Celis is deceptive about what happened to Isabel. 

He works from scripted language rather than experiential memory.  

He gives linguistic indicators of sexual abuse. 

Isabel was not "abducted."  

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.  

When first analyzed I wrote, "It is likely that Isabel Celis has been a victim of sexual abuse and is not alive. "  

The concerns of sexual abuse are here, but regarding the death:  This was due to not only the deception, but the distancing language.  

Sergio tells us that he has a need to alibi himself and is not an accomplished liar.  This is evident in the awkwardness of his wording.  

Lie Detection Training 

For training for your law enforcement department, business, or individual, visit Hyatt Analysis Services and follow the links to "training."

Our Complete Statement Analysis Course is done at your home, at your pace and comes with 12 months of e support.  The end result is 100% accuracy in detecting liars.  For training