Monday, September 17, 2018

Suspect Indicted in Death of Isabel Celis

A suspect has been indicted in the homicide of Isabel Celis. 

Is the analysis of his 911 call wrong?

Will a conviction mean:

a. the accused did it?
b. the father had no connection to the accused?
c. Dept of Children and Family (DCF) did not have concerns or evidence of sexual abuse by the father?

Let' look at the 911 call again. 

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."

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

This is the most important thing about the case as it is the first information given. 

How did the father (caller) describe his daughter?  This is called "Linguistic Disposition"

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 judicial innocence.  

Sergio Celis is judicially innocent in the death of his daughter, Isabel.  He remains so at this time, with a sex offender under indictment. 

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.  

We expect a biological father to report his daughter missing.  

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.  If he is just guessing, the weakness is 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.  

What changed?

She was "my little girl" abducted from "our" house; but 
a "child" when from "my" (closer, personal) house. 

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.  He reports her "abducted" rather than "missing."

He "believes" it.  

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

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 given the context of not only a missing child, but of an "abduction" that he believes took place.  

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" gives 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?  

"just" is a dependent word in analysis, meaning it relies upon another thought.  It is to denote timing. 
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 sexual 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.

offering help to police, but not about Isabel.  Consider "ingratiation factor." 
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 expect 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.  

In interviews, including on television, deception continued.  For one "abducted" he offered nothing to the "abductor" or "kidnappers", did not say "ransom", "payment" or anything related to his belief system. 

What did Sergio Celis know or believe? 

Could he have failed polygraph due to child molestation?

Or, is the analysis completely wrong? 

On only two cases did I disagree with investigators. Both involved passed polygraphs and investigators' testimony of innocence. 

One is now in prison for murdering his girlfriend and her son;

the other reoffended on a child. 

One case I thought I was wrong on:  the father of a missing child was "deception indicated" when asked what happened. 

The child was killed by a sex offender. 

What went wrong with the analysis?

I later learned that the father lied in the interview because he was under the influence when his child wandered off.  

Here, in the Isabel case, not only is there deception, but indicators of sexual abuse of the child.  

Stay tuned to the case. 


Anonymous said...

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:



Ella said...

Peter, I agree with you analysis but, how is it possible someone else led them to the body At least as far as police are concerned it wasn’t the father. Would like to know you’re thoughts on the twist.

Anonymous said...


A North Carolina 1-year-old boy was found dead Monday after being swept away by rushing floodwaters from Florence when his mother lost her grip on the child.

The body of Kaiden Lee-Welch was found by police Monday morning after search and rescue teams spent hours looking for him overnight. Kaiden went missing after water from the deadly storm flooded the highway his mother was driving on as she headed east to Wadesboro, North Carolina.

"I was holding his hand, trying to hold him, trying to pull him up ... I couldn't hold on anymore, and HE [emphasis added] let go"

Article goes on to say that she drove around a barricade.

M said...

Regarding the SA of Sergio Celis' 9-11 call:

I am bilingual and bicultural, and In spite of my personal feelings or gut reaction to Sergio Celis, I feel that the fact must be taken into account that as a Latino he is not a native speaker of English; he is a native Spanish speaker and English is not his first language. This is clearly reflected in his speech.

I wonder, how can SA not allow for this significant difference?

For example In Spanish, there is not the ingrained and obligatory use of the subject pronoun, since it is reflected by and included in the verb. In Celis' case, mastery in the use of these pronouns did not happen instinctively in early childhood as cited by Peter, so this would not apply to this case. Where is the allowance for this difference?

The verb "notice", in Spanish, notar, means you just notice, perceive, there is no stipulation that it has to be accidental as cited in the analysis of the English. How would Sergio know of these subtleties? Why should he be held to the same linguistic rules as a generic native speaker?

"What color are "clear" eyes?"
The "clear eyes" as questioned in Peter's analysis, are one clear example.
They are "ojos claros"in Spanish , or light-colored eyes, and the reason Sergio said this is because he is a native Spanish speaker, dominant in Spanish.

Another point questioned in red, are the little shirt and shorts that he described Isabel as wearing. In Spanish, the diminutive is very commonly used, camisita, pantaloncito, zapaticos, Sergio is just automatically translating into English here. Again, to make no allowance and to highlight this,seems to reflect a lack of cultural understanding. The SA rules cannot be the same if the subject is qualitatively different.

"It indicates focus where we do not expect to hear focus. "

For many Latino fathers, their little girls are raised as their little princesses, and since physical beauty is very highly valued in Latino culture, especially for females, he focuses on this. It is not unexpected as it would be in Anglo culture.

Reference to the "butt" cola in Spanish is also much more common and completely different.

Word choice may be due to linguistic differences, there are subtleties of language lost on those at a certain language level of learning and acquisition, you cannot judge their speech by the same rules. (as in the mention of "reward"vs."ransom" in one analysis.)


M said...

RE: 9-11 call SA

Even non subtle differences exist that are not being taken into account.
for example--

Dispatcher: Why do you think she abducted?
Sergio: I have no idea.

--The reason that his answer makes no sense, is that in the SA you are not taking into account that for a nonnative or even a native, this very same question in English can have a second and distinct meaning.

"Why do you think she was abducted?'"
can also be interpreted to mean, "Why do you think she of all people was abducted? "Why do you think she was targeted for abduction?" or "Why do you think they chose her to abduct?"
This is obviously the question understood and answered by Sergio here.
The SA does not reflect this.

Another characteristic, being ingratiating, is also one that many Latino men adopt. Latinos are also very polite and formal in their language as a rule. In addition, those who learn English as a second language may sound more scripted and stilted since they are actually repeating formulas that have worked for them in past situations.

Language reflects culture, and also linguistically, Sergio certainly does not have the same number of vocabulary words to draw on as cited that an average person has to choose from when answering a question. Where is the allowance for this?

Surely all these factors can't be irrelevant in SA; and an analysis of a non native speaker's words cannot be the same as one of a native English speaker.
A passing reference to "cultural differences" just isn't enough.

I am fascinated by SA and have learned much on this blog.
I do not even like Sergio, but these are all valid points I think, since SA needs to be performed from an informed cultural and linguistic perspective.
Without knowing Spanish and being familiar with the Latino culture, I feel Statement Analysis is not as effective here.

I make my points respectfully and would appreciate any responses to them.


MsGvious said...

Thanks Peter.

Sergio explains Isabel's middle initial is "M as in man is the middle initial".

1) Isabel's middle name, Mercedes, is very distinctive.
2) Man is anonymous & distancing, and now a 'man' separates Isabel from her family Celis.
3) M as in mom is a protective, loving choice.

Anonymous said...

He refers to his sons appropriately. "My sons."

I also found his comment "M as in man is in the middle" odd. Usually you use a male or female name like Mark or Mary. There's something off about it.


M said...

Here again, with the "M as in ____" references, there are linguistic and cultural differences not being taken into account.

A native English speaker can only judge what is usual or "off" for others in his experience who are native English speakers.
This would not include Sergio or necessarily be valid for him; one would be projecting one's expectations on him though he is a Spanish-dominant Latino man and as a subject is qualitatively different.

(Mercedes, Isabel's middle name, is a common one in Spanish.)

Hey Jude said...

Neither parent had concern for Isabel in the present - Rebecca detailed how she had done Isabel's hair the night before, but neither implored an abductor not to hurt her. They had a lot of air time - Rebecca spoke about herself, and how being interviewed "is not me/ this isn't us" - when it would be expected they would focus on their daughter. Whatever their first language, the priority should have been to plead for her safe return, yet they didn't express fear as to who took her, and what might be happening to her - the lack of urgency and expected concern is the same in any language. The Celis parents are similar to the McCanns in not speaking of their daughter as if they believed she were endangered, and alive. Rebecca said they were "confident" they had nothing to do with it", which in any language, is not to deny knowledge or responsibility.

Parts One and Two of interview with local media

M said...

Quoting Peter's SA:

"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."

This is one way of looking at it.

---Or perhaps it does make sense Sergio's way, if you interpret the question differently.

The question in question:

"Why do you think she was abducted?

One question: two meanings.

Meaning number one of the question, as interpreted in the SA is "What makes you think that she was abducted (what reasons led you to believe that)?" This is the assumption here, on the face of it. HIs answer makes no sense in this context.

However, the reason his answer does not make sense, is because we are asking the wrong question.

If we ask "Why do you think she was abducted (what was the motivation, why was she targeted)? everything changes here.

Sergio understood and responded to the latter meaning, (what motivation diid they have?, why was she targeted?) while analysis was applied to the former (why do you think so? what reasons do you have?)

"I have no idea", Sergio's response, now does make sense.

This changes a lot, since the analysis was based on this premise.


George G. George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
George G. George said...

You make some good points.

George G. George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
George G. George said...

I read that the neighbor reported hearing voices and someone at the window on the night Isabel went missing. Did the suspect take her out her bedroom window? Were the voices heard of the suspect talking to Isabel? Or did he have someone with him? If he was talking to Isabel that would mean she was awake. Why didn't she kick and scream? Was she too sleepy or was she drugged? Was the suspect watching Isabel to know where her room was? Or did he know the family?

M said...

I was interested to hear mention in the previous comments regarding cavardine detected in the Celis' home.
This would certainly be game-changing information and evidence.
I have searched online, and am unable to find a reference to this from any news source.

Would anyone have a link?

Anonymous said...

What happened at the baseball game?

Was there social contact between Justin Mastromarino, Sabastian Hartsfield, and Clements?

Elsa Kim said...

First sentence of his: „my Little Girl“... I knew right there that he abused her. It’s daughter. Not my little girl to a father!!!

M said...

Quoting from SA of 9-11 call:

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. "


This is one view.

or maybe he just wants to be seen as the macho guy.

He shows himself to be a typical macho Latino male, eager to show himself as having control over his wife. Nothing new here.

Latinos are notorious machistas with good reason, and they generally feel a strong need to show superiority and domination over their wife and to portray themselves as always in control.

They are also very sensitive about public perception and their place as the head of the family.

Here, from his words Sergio wants us to believe that he he does as a rule impose authority over her.
Because as a Latino man, this is his expected role and this posturing is not unexpected.

He wants to be seen as the head of the household, in charge.

This would be a general rule, and not necessarily specific to the situation, again a reflection of his culture, this is not an average American man speaking here and we cannot interpret his words without considering the source and his background.

Hey Jude said...

George -

Interviewer: Do you believe she was taken out the window?

Sergio Celis: I will say initially - but then after, you know, more investigating - uh, and I don’t want to go too far about that - I am just not sure anymore. And that’s as far as I think I should probably speak about that

That is in Part Two of the parents’ interview with local media, around the 9.30 mark. I see I have duplicated the URL to Part One in my earlier comment - this is the correct address for Part Two:


Nancy Grace spoke with a neighbour who heard "multiple male voices" outside her bedroom window around 6.30, which was feet from Isabel's window, the morning Isabel was reported missing. She said she thought someone was going round for a walk, and there was no yelling, no screaming, they were just having a conversation.

Anonymous said...

I an a retired teacher. My Spanish speaking students often interchanged the English words ASKED and TOLD. Example "I told my Mother IF I could go to the store" when requesting permission to do so.

Sergio might have said "Please come home ASAP..." but then used the word TOLD when relaying that fact to the 911 operator.

Buckley said...

But “I have no idea” was only the beginning of his response. He goes on to answer the why of the question:

“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…"

“I have no idea” is only part of his answer. There’s extra information in the rest of his answer, but he tells WHY he thinks she was abducted: she wasn’t in her room and her screen was out. But then he’s flagged as deceptive because, in a supposedly scripted call, he utters four words before giving the details “she wasn’t in her room and the screen was out”. How do we know? He tells us! He used the time it took to utter four words to determine how to answer the ambiguous question, but he answered it the way it was intended.

I think there’s a contradiction in the perception of how he treats police. When he says “hello” he’s ingratiating himself as a good guy (and compared to Kunz who went on for paragraphs about S & Rescue). But he’s also flagged for not being cooperative enough when he says they’re wasting their time with them and could be looking for her. Which is it? He seems damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

I believe in SA. I know it is powerful. But well before this guy got arrested, I felt the analysis and commentary on this case had major issues. Celis is a strange guy and doesn’t react in a textbook manner, but he does not show guilty knowledge of his daughter’s disappearance.

Buckley said...

Off what M said: I think the macho Latino came out when he was talking to his wife. He aggressively told her to come home. Maybe out of frustration he couldn’t answer her questions, he cut it short by snipping at her to just get her butt home. When relaying it to dispatch, perhaps he realized how stupid it sounded in the telling and that’s why he laughed. Nonetheless, as awkward as it was, it’s not evidence of murder.

Anonymous said...

"I walked around the house"

Inside or Outside? If Outside, did you see the window screen on the ground?

M said...

Car Ja said...
"First sentence of his: „my Little Girl“... I knew right there that he abused her. It’s daughter. Not my little girl to a father!!!"
September 17, 2018 at 3:03 PM

Here again, it depends on the parent, mi nenita, mi niñita, "my little girl" could well be used as a term of endearment by a Latino parent.

Remember that Sergio is translating from the Spanish to English, since he is not dominant in English like most subjects of SA:

As another example, in the interview, Part One posted above,.the mom is very genuinely emotional and utters a word in Spanish, calling her daughter "Mami".(mommy) when she addresses her.

Before getting all fired up at how inappropriate calling her daughter "Mami" is, you would have to know about Latino culture. It is very common to affectionately call kids and babies "mami mamita o papi papito". It may seem weird to English-speakers, but it is the way it is for Latinos, and if you don't know, you don't know.

Cultural blinders, we all have them.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Stay tuned to this case!

M, you’re interpreting; not analyzing.

Let’s see if the analysis is correct!

More to follow.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Many errors here. I will address later. I’m in LE training local.

Buckley said...

M- what do you think of “abducted” vs. “kidnapped”? What might be a greater assumption for the Celises? That someone took their daughter for ransom (kidnapped) or that someone took their daughter for sexual or trafficking purposes (abducted)? It would seem either one makes an assumption about the purpose of the taking. I’d think parents like the Ramseys would assume kidnapping, but the Celises?

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

They did not say what they were investigating.

Buckley said...

M- on the K-9 hit:

“A dog from an FBI search team that included a scent dog and a cadaver dog hit on something in the house that police noted was "important" to the investigation on April 22. Police then executed search warrants on the Celis home and other homes in the neighborhood, though they would not say which ones.”

While I don’t see any results of what the K-9 hit was (it was FBI), the Tucson Police file includes a report of an officer who assisted with an “FBI K-9 dismissal process on those who had been in the residence prior to the dog’s arrival.” So, acknowledging there was a hit, and the wording in the quoted article implies the hit resulted in search warrants for other homes, I wonder if the dog hit on human scent not expected in the residence, which prompted looking for that scent in other homes.

M said...

Yes, Peter, I may be interpreting, but maybe you do need an interpreter here, since we are not dealing with an American whose first language was English as is the usual case. You may need an interpreter to make up for this linguistic and cultural differences that definitely exist.

I think you are analyzing from your perspective as an American male, and Sergio is not one.

Also that of a native monolingual English speaker,
Here again, Sergio is not one, he shows himself to be dominant in Spanish.("clear eyes") ("little shirt")

How could this case not be different, since so many of the usual points do not apply, for example about available vocabulary to draw on and acquisition of use of pronouns in early childhood?

How do you allow for these differences?

What about the alternative meaning to the key question of why she was abducted?

I feel my interpretation is correct here, it makes sense.
You need the correct interpretation in order to make the correct analysis.

I think it was necessary to interpret this question (of why she was abducted) in a different way to get to the heart of the matter.

I value Peter's knowledge and experience and I am appreciative of all I have learned on here. I bring these points up respectfully, to further understanding, I am certainly not an SA expert in any way.

I am a Spanish language and culture expert though, and I believe this perspective is lacking in the analysis.
We are not dealing with a typical "gringo" here.
Perhaps interpreters have their place?


Buckley said...

I agree, M, I’ve learned so much, too. My question is less about interpreting vs analyzing than it is about analyzing vs persuading as it relates to the need to “believe the statement” and that “the statement is alive the subject is dead.” Wouldn’t it be true that if an analyst adheres to that principle, the analysis would be free of “need to persuade”? The Celis analyses are rife with persuasion whereas most other crime-related analyses are not. Take DeOrr Kunz for example, which is an amazing analysis, with no animus toward the parents, no conclusion that seemed forced too early. I’m in awe of it.

I am not an expert on Spanish language and culture but it seems Sergio has mastered English pretty well. His use of the idiom “get your butt home” isn’t literal and people don’t use it in a sexual way. So to claim it has a sexual connotation to it, seems exactly the kind of interpretation M is being cautioned against. So color me confused.

Hey Jude said...

M - when Sergio was asked his response to people who suspected him of involvement in Isabel's disappearance, he said a lot whilst completely evading the question. His English is fluent - he's not translating in his head, he's thinking in English. I have many nationalities in my extended family - they don't all have as good mastery of English as does Sergio. I agree that naming some eye colours can be problematic, and here they will search for the right word in English and not find it - 'hazel' is not used as an eye colour by everyone. They all could give a straight answer to a straight question, though - Sergio is quite good at going the long route.

I'll find and transcribe the part of the interview in which Sergio goes out of his way to evade the question of his involvement - nothing can convince me he is not knowledgeable in what became of his daughter.

Anonymous said...


I think you have made some good points.


Hey Jude said...

Interviewer: Sergio, what do you want to say about questions about whether you had anything to do with your daughter’s disappearance?

Sergio: Uh - gosh - I, I wish I knew where to begin. We are so frustrated to try to understand why this is happening why this had to happen, why Isabel had to be targeted - we just don’t understand that. And to whomever did this - please - look at her - look at her - she’s beautiful - she doesn’t deserve this - she deserves to be home - she deserves to be home in her room playing with her brothers and just loving life the way she does. This is - there are so many things that, that are just so frustrating and so difficult to deal with - and it -

Interviewer interrupts: You - you?

Rebecca: We just want her home, we just want her home.


Sergio was given the opportunity to state that he had nothing to do with Isabel’s disappearance, yet he made no attempt to deny it - he doesn’t want to speak for himself, or be alone in what he is saying, so he begins using ‘we’ - even then he does not address the question of whether he or ‘we’ had anything to do with his daughter’s disappearance.

The interview, which is here,

is very interesting, with some contradictory head shaking, and their first live interview following Isabel’s disappearance. When asked to speak about Isabel, Rebecca chooses to describe how she is a ‘girly girl’ who likes her hair done, and to wear make up - she doesn’t say what Rebecca likes to eat and drink or wear (besides make up) or if she has particular types of toys or books she likes, or anything which, if she believed she was being held by someone for ransom or reward, might be useful information to the abductor in making her more comfortable and less miserable at being away from her family.


In various interviews they find it necessary to talk about how Isabel’s hair was styled, which seems strange - it’s not as if they are saying ‘look out for a little girl whose hair might still be styled with four braids put into two ponytails’, it seems they just want everyone to know her hair had been done on the night before she disappeared, ready for the next day.

Lars Bak said...

Hi M

I think you make some very interesting points that are worth remembering, regardless of the outcome of this case. I do have some trouble with one of your key points, though:

You ask: “What about the alternative meaning to the key question of why she was abducted?”

I think that the deeper problem with this “abduction” (how can you take it for granted) is that he offers it at a very early state (how can you say with certainty how he interprets the dispatchers question about it?).

Given that it is his very first explanation we expect his statement to substantiate it, regardless of culture. Do you think this is the case?

Lars Bak said...

Hi M

I guess I’m the one you call Unknown in your answer.

I may not have made myself clear. What I meant was that no matter how the dispatcher’s question is understood it is a concern that Celis offers “abducted” from the very beginning.

He says “I believe she was abducted” – do you think the emphasis here is on “she” or on “abducted”? Furthermore he only “believes”, not that she’s a she, but that she has been abducted, giving more emphasis to “abducted” – it is the whole context. This is what produces “Why do you think she’s abducted” and it seems illogical to me that Celis should understand the question as having another context than what he originally gave it himself. Where that change would come from can’t be explained with his answer.

I’m not sure, that the fact that one understanding makes no sense whereas another makes perfect sense regarding the answer, is in itself an argument, because every time we meet “I have no idea” – also if it apparently makes some sense – we flag it, because everybody usually have at least some idea about almost anything.

Lars Bak said...

I have now seen that you addressed me with my name.

Bobcat said...

Did Isabel die in her room?

Were either of her brothers in the room when she died?

What did Sergio hear?

Parts of her disappearance remind me of Lisa Irwin.

Sergio referring to her clothes as "little" remind me of the father who called his dead daughter a "dot".

Statement Analysis Blog said...

DCF had a very good reason to remove Sergio from the home. Unable to gather more evidence during the investigation, they had no choice but to let him return.

There has been much peer review of the analysis. It is not complicated analysis posted here and more in depth work is done in team setting and with investigators.

The subject (father) did not translate; he speaks fluent English.

The subsequent interviews (public) affirm the analysis.

Explaining away is not science. Interpreting words for new meaning is not science.

Cultural distinction is taken in context, along with peer review from this specific vantage.

The language of the father is associated with child abuse; specific in nature.

The avoidance is also consistent in subsequent interviews.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Context of "excited utterance" is:

a. a missing child (or in his language, an abduction

b. he is not pausing to translate from Spanish to English

c. he is the biological father

If you excuse or dismiss all three, you can "see" what is not in his language.

In English second language, not only is peer review done by bilingual, yet we also listen to learn if the subject must pause to translate. This is a form of "block analysis" that avoids nuance.

The posted analysis is closer to block than nuance. It is general, given the context of a biological parent learning his child is not in the house. The presupposition of truth (he did not know what happened nor why his child was not in the home) is upended by his words.

Keep your eyes on the case as it develops.

Leave interpretations of words for apologetic defenders.


Anonymous said...


I live in an area with many Hispanics and work with lots of people that were born here and grew up speaking English from day one that still use the term clear eyes. I understand that the phrase is a Latino one, but the people I know that use it are not translating it in their heads, they probably just grew up hearing it from their Latino families.


M said...


Thank you for your comments.

I have one question that I have not seen addressed since the meaning the dispatcher's "Why do you think she was abducted? can be interpreted two ways.

(This is undeniable surely.)

1--Why do you think she was abducted (what makes you think that)?

2--Why do you think she was abducted (why was she in particular targeted) ?

The SA interprets it to mean 1.

Serio's answer shows he understood number 2, Why did they choose to abduct her?

To this he answers, "I have no idea" which makes perfect sense. Ah.

This is a completely legitimate understanding of the question and answer, but is rejected out of hand in the SA, why?

It seems to me that sticking to the interpretation of the meaning that does not fit and does not makes sense, and not taking into account the dual meaning, the second completely legitimate meaning of the question, seems to lack objectivity and not be fair to Sergio, since this is red flagged in the SA and the other meaning that makes perfect sense and would change the flagging in the SA significantly is not even considered.


Thank you Peter for this blog, and to all for their input.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous - you just reply with incorrect. You are able to quote Peter but unable to quote anything else to your "incorrect". On the basis you aren't trolling please give us quotes and facts.

Anonymous said...

M - you mention a good point. SA is predominantly used in first language. However Sergio was speaking English so giggling at the English word "butt" highlights concerns as Peter wrote. If Sergio was to speak Spanish and also giggle at "cola" I suggest the principle is still the same - he is reporting the disappearance of his 6 yr old daughter so giggling at "butt" or " cola" is unexpected and raises concerns - exactly as per SA principle.

Anonymous said...

As you are someone who hasn't studied Statement Analysis to an advanced level or even a foundational level for you to conclude it's ineffective here is interesting and pointless. It's your opinion and baseless.

Buckley said...

Serio's answer shows he understood number 2, Why did they choose to abduct her?

It shows he’s not sure how to answer or ready to answer or confused by the question. That he’s confused by the question and stalls for an answer seems the most likely. But again, he starts answering interpretation 1 of the question at the fifth word in. He does not say “I have no idea” and leave it at that.

M said...

Anonymous, 3.03, yes it is mostly in first language, and the principles about language acquisition, vocabulary, ingrained pronoun use in childhood, etc would be significantly different for an adult second language learner.

One point that is key and that both you and Peter mention is that content is flagged regardless, I do understand that part and appreciate the reminder.


M said...

D, thanks for your note.

The term clear eyes was not understood by the dispatcher or Peter in the SA, and would only be used by a Latino.

Hey Jude said...

Why do you think she was abducted?

Emergency services operators know that most often a child is found hiding in the house, or a young child may have fallen asleep in an unlikely place, or has otherwise left the house by themselves without the parents' knowledge. The operator is very likely asking why do you think she has been abducted? (as opposed to any of these more likely/usual reasons for a child to be missing?) That's often how it turns out - the child is unlikely to have been abducted, and even less so a sleeping child from her room, by a stranger - it's so rare. On that basis, I think that is how the operator intended the question - Why is he believing the least likely reason for his daughter to be missing?

He has not said he believes she was abducted by a family member, that there was a dispute over who should have care or custody, which would be the most likely reason for an abduction - has e has not said who he believes took her, the operator asks the obvious question - why does he believe she was abducted? Most child abductions are familial.

Otherwise you have it that the trained operator is accepting, from the outset, of Sergio's 'belief' that his daughter has been targeted and abducted by a person or persons unknown, when she knows most calls about missing young children work out as false alarms - the child is asleep/hiding in the home, or not far from home, while abductions are most often family custody disputes, rather than stranger abductions.

I agree, the question *can* be taken in two ways - but which is the most likely way for it to have been intended by a 911 operator? I think, in way One:

1--Why do you think she was abducted (what makes you think that)?

What makes you think that? - as opposed to there being a more likely reason for you not being able to find her.

I think if you have it as way Two:

2--Why do you think she was abducted (why was she in particular targeted) ?

you are maybe seeing the 911 operator more as a detective looking for a motive rather than a dispatcher of emergency services.


Sergio is so fluent, I think he was most likely raised bi-lingual with Spanish as the dominant language - he doesn't sound like an adult learner of a second language.

ima.grandma said...

Points on this discussion go to Buckley.

M said...

Yes, Hey Jude, that is the meaning that the dispatcher had in mind, and the first one that comes to mind.

The question, "Why do you think she was abducted?" or in other words, what reasons do you have?

It is also the meaning assumed for the SA.

It was the meaning I first assumed too.

It is however, indisputably not the only meaning here. The very same question,

Why do you think she was abducted? can also mean What reasons did they have to abduct her? Why was she targeted?

Sergio's answer " I have no idea", clearly does not fit this first meaning; this is flagged and mentioned several times in SA.

It does fit the second alternative meaning, (Why did they choose to abduct her?)) which is not noted or mentioned in SA.

Why insist on only the first meaning and not even take into account the second completely legitimate meaning that does fit here?

This fixation on one meaning is done to Sergio's detriment, since the question he understood and the one his response reflects and answered is ignored while negative conclusions are drawn.

---How can SA be objective if a second legitimate meaning is ignored and conclusions are made based upon the analyst's "chosen" meaning, which is merely one of two? Why not analyze the other meaning, to be objective?

I am here to humbly learn and appreciate this blog and the comments.


Anonymous said...

Celia case
Christopher Clements
career criminal
fresh out of prison
moved 2 miles from Celis home shortly before she was reported missing.

Hey Jude said...

I see what you are saying, M - however, even if Sergio took the question to mean 'What reasons did they have to abduct her? Why was she targeted? - he would have had 'an idea' . If he believed Isabel had been abducted, he would very likely be in fear that a sex offender had taken his daughter, and that she may already be dead in a ditch - so "I have no idea" was in the least, blasé.

It is his "I have no idea" as a response which is of significance, regardless of which way he took the question.

Davey Blackburn claimed he "had no idea" there were bullets in his wife, or that anyone had been in his house.


'"It is very difficult to believe someone who says "I have no idea" about something pressing. It is sometimes the bane of the intellectually lazy, while at other times, it is deceptive." Peter Hyatt

Shelley said...

Does anyone know of the man arrested has claimed he did murder Isabel? To my knowledge the only connection was that both children’s bodies were found in the “same general area”.

While he’s its unlikely, I can not get over the lack of fear or panic in the parents.

They locked themselves away at home to “grieve” rather than search which would be expected.

Anonymous said...

There has been, in my opinion, some conflicting or vagueness about the circumstances of what the accused has offered. He was in jail in April of 2017, I believe. Sometime in early March 2017, Isabe' remains were found "not by happenstance' This was reported to the public on March 31st. Supposedly, Clements was in jail regarding other charges. Someone either tipped them off to Clements as a possible suspect, who led them to Isabel in the desert. Or someone led them to the desert which resulted in his indictment. It seems to me that if Clements confessed or led them to her remains or would not have taken this long for an indictment. I think it is suspected that he committed the crime involving Mirabel. They went back to look for additional evidence and found Isabel in the same general area. At some point Clements was considered the suspect for both girls.Perhaps based on a tip. I find it highly unlikely that Clements confessed or revealed anything.

I have wondered about the peculiar behavior of the parents. I hope the indictment of Clements has a legitimate and strong basis in these cases. Horrible as he is, the cases need justice, not convenience.

Anonymous said...

Hello M, I have read your comments with interest. I have no personal knowledge of Sergio, but I have had many bi-lingual students and adult friends. Based on my knowledge and experience, Sergio is fluent in English and not translating. I believe his knowledge and usage of the language is not dissimilar from native speakers.
I noticed you seem to give much allowance to cultural differences as well as the linguistic. He is not a newcomer unacquainted with customs and culture. He does not live in a vacuum. Machismo aside, he made a joke and giggled. I would imagine this to be inappropriate in any culture.
As for his answer to the abduction question. He used that word. And I'm sure he knows the meaning of that word and its connotation. It's strong, intentional, forceful, dangerous and explicit. Not merely missing, not merely taken. And when asked why he thought this, he didn't know. The dispatcher didn't ask him why he thought she was missing, because that is not the word or the meaning of his word that he used. No one says abducted unless that is what they mean. And I think he used that forceful word for a reason.

Anonymous said...

Hello Mr.Hyatt,

From first listening to the 911 call, I was struck by many oddities.Ofcourse, his lack of urgency, plural pronouns, references to his daughter as a person, his joke and giggle and so on. A seemingly narcissistic man with stunted emotions and social skills? I don't know. The use of the word "abduction" is what I honed in on. The connotation of the word is sinister, intentional, premeditated, calculated. It demands attention in a way that missing or even taken does not.

Was he laying groundwork? Did he have reason to believe she would or should have been abducted? Was it a word he chose to make them take it more seriously and more quickly?
I have a very strong command of the English language and I dont think I could ever come up with that word unless I meant it with every connotation associated with it.

Unknown said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hello M, I have read your comments

whoa risk being called a supremacist if you don't agree with M

George G. George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
George G. George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
habundia said...

yet we can not ignore that upbringing forms your personality. While also genetic makes a difference. If he's raised Spanish and lived 'Spanish', before learning English, it makes a difference, I think.
As a Dutch, English is my second language. I am sure I make errors in writing because of using Dutch sentence building and using the words I know in Dutch translating them into English. ..every culture has a way of using language and your upbringing will show in your language.
The use of 'little', is done by his wife too often I saw in interview of them 3 years after the 'abduction', I watched yesterday.

habundia said...

Those are the vids I watched yesterday.
I've watched quite a lot of interviews of parents or loved one's talking about the one they are missing, in docu's or on episodes of tv programs/vids on internet.....and as a sensitive person I often find myself crying along with those people or at least I feel some of their pain (although I can't relate to abduction, yet I do know how it feels to loose someone you love).
Not once did I have any of that emotion feeling when they spoke. Not even when Rebecca did "breakdown", and no tear or watery eyes were seen. (This is not SA I know), but when one speaks about a missing child and the words they speak not even give the slightest impact on the emotion of another, because their words are 'kind of meaningless' (while they shouldn't be.....your child is missing!) then something is WAY OFF!

habundia said...

that same witness said her dog was barking and the dogs of the celis family was barking (but in interview it is heard the dog barks a lot, but Rebecca also interrupted the i terview to silence the dog) that was what woke her up at 5.28am she heard the voices but didnt think anything about it. later she said she should have because the path that leaded to that window lead also to the witness front door and she was the only one using that path so there shouldnt have been voices. She could not say who's voices it was

habundia said...

when asked something like what do you expect when Isa would come home? She telling that her hair would probably sticking out everywhere (like being messy) 'because thats what her hair did'
Who cares about hair? What about her safety?

habundia said...

Lars said: "He says “I believe she was abducted” – do you think the emphasis here is on “she” or on “abducted”? Furthermore he only “believes”, not that she’s a she, but that she has been abducted, giving more emphasis to “abducted” – it is the whole context. This is what produces “Why do you think she’s abducted” and it seems illogical to me that Celis should understand the question as having another context than what he originally gave it himself. Where that change would come from can’t be explained with his answer."

I think this explains it very well. It is not the analyst who interept the meaning, it's the subject who tells the analyst what his word mean.
He's the one who's telling she's abducted. if one wouldn't have 'any ideas', then they wouldn't have come up with "I believe she's abducted' either, there they wouldn't have 'any idea'
It's up to the subject to answer the question in the way they want to answer it.
Avoiding answering, like when he was asked what he wanted to say to the people about their involvement....and he gave a lengthy answer yet didn't answers the question at all.

If one 'believes she's being abducted'......then there is reason to think that ....and he gave his reason (screen outside window open') and later on he also went into the part of motive for her being taken (he then doesn't call it abduction anymore)

SA is also a form of calculating....counting together the things that stand out, high sensibilities (blue), high alert (red), but also how things keep repeating or in fact changing and becoming deceptive, unreliable. ..analyses don't stam from the analyses of one word's how the use of that particular word is being used along the way of the statement, if it is being re-used.
So his answers tells how he intercept the question, it's not for the analyst...they only notice and note down.

At least that's my interpretation of it.
Correct me if I am wrong (to those who are more experienced as me)

habundia said...

in one of their interviews they are talking about 1 person who didn't cooperate and left the area....could that be this person?
Could it be that those bodies were dumped close to each other and it was 'coincidence' they found Isa while searching the area after finding the other girl?

Unknown said...

Anonymous habundia said...
SA is also a form of calculating...

SA is not calculating or adding up points and it is not interpreting.

often it directs the analyst to formulate questions that need to be answered, it provides insight into to the subject. it can determine reliable, unreliable or not reliable.

Unknown said...

Blogger Unknown said...
Anonymous habundia said...
SA is also a form of calculating...

SA is not calculating or adding up points and it is not interpreting.

often it directs the analyst to formulate questions that need to be answered, it provides insight into to the subject. it can determine reliable, unreliable or not reliable.

I should add that while doing the analysis one does keep track of the number of points of weakness and sensitivity but the conclusion isn't a calculation of the number of points per se.

context is always very important.

x-goosegog-x said...

"Unknown" calling out habundia as "anonymous". I can't decide if that's funny or just plain retarded.

Unknown said...

Anonymous x-goosegog-x said...
"Unknown" calling out habundia as "anonymous". I can't decide if that's funny or just plain retarded.

I didn't put the anonymous into the tag line, it came when I cut and pasted. it may come up here as well. we shall see when I post.

but I see you managed to put "retarded" in your language. are you afraid to openly call me retarded?

told you he liar liar said...

Kavanaugh denied the allegations against him in a written statement released by the White House on Friday, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation,” he said. “I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

liar liar

Now, more damning evidence of Kavanaugh’s predatory character has emerged. The front page of today’s issue of the Yale Daily News paints a very disturbing picture of what kind of a young man he was. The paper includes an article about Kavanaugh’s days at the university, during which he was part of an all-boys Yale secret society called “Truth and Courage” which was referred to as “Tit and Clit.” The creepily nicknamed organization eventually disappeared in the 2010’s. Kavanaugh was also a member of the fraternity DKE, which was known for raiding female student’s rooms to steal their underwear. The organization had a reputation for mistreating women and was suspended for five years in 2010 by Yale after its members were caught on video yelling “no means yes, yes means anal” in front of the Yale Women’s Center. Yale Daily News also revealed that the university opened an investigation into DKE this past spring after more than half a dozen of its members were accused of sexual assault. Clearly, Kavanaugh has long been steeped in a culture of misogyny and sexual misconduct. It’s naive to think that he didn’t take part in similar behavior when it’s apparent so many of his fellows did. He comes from a world of entitlement, where the demeaning and abuse of women is treated as an enjoyable joke. It certainly follows that a young man who attempted rape at a high school party would go on to join a misogynist secret society and a fraternity known for its sexual aggression towards women.

good job M said...

"M" has done a wonderful job here with the language differences.... this is much like the case of the french woman who lost her baby in a park, the french language and especially the cultural influence of slang of where she was from made a huge difference in the outcome of the analysis.

M said...

Thank you Hey Jude, and I can see that some responses might be flagged regardless.

However, it is possible that he had no idea why she was targeted for abduction.

There is an interview with an elderly victim of the same accused suspect, she was targeted for an elaborate burglary. The woman emphasizes when asked that she has no idea how she was targeted.

In the same way Sergio said "clear eyes" and was not understood, to ignore that there may well be other instances here where his language reflects his culture, and not to take that into account, I think is to be disingenuous.


M said...

Anonymous habundia said...
yet we can not ignore that upbringing forms your personality. While also genetic makes a difference. If he's raised Spanish and lived 'Spanish', before learning English, it makes a difference, I think.
As a Dutch, English is my second language. I am sure I make errors in writing because of using Dutch sentence building and using the words I know in Dutch translating them into English. ..every culture has a way of using language and your upbringing will show in your language.
The use of 'little', is done by his wife too often I saw in interview of them 3 years after the 'abduction', I watched yesterday.

September 20, 2018 at 5:03 PM

Thanks Habundia for your insightful comment as a bilingual person.

Yes, if you learn a language as a second one, you will always have language that reflects that to some degree.
And your usage of the acquired language will always reflect your culture, your background.

I have spoken Spanish for decades, and still find myself saying "Ouch!" if I hurt myself, (excited utterance) a definite give away to my background.

In one interview when Becky speaks to Isa, she calls her "mommy". What would SA make of this? Language is culture.

The use of "little" that you mention is very important, since for Spanish speakers diminutives are everywhere, while in English we are left with very few, like piglet, sweetie, and pops.

To flag the use of "little" and make negative conclusions without considering the differences in the cultural use of this term would seem to be failing to take into account important info.

M said...

Much has been made of the use of the word abduct instead of kidnap.

take (someone) away illegally by force or deception; kidnap.

Abduct and kidnap are synonyms.

Even a native asked the question.

This is splitting hairs.

I asked a very smart American teen I know about their meanings, and the teen said " Don't they mean the same thing?"

To read so much onto the use of the word abduct over kidnap is to project meanings and connotations that others do not necessarily share, possibly to their detriment.

M said...

Anonymous good job M said...
"M" has done a wonderful job here with the language differences.... this is much like the case of the french woman who lost her baby in a park, the french language and especially the cultural influence of slang of where she was from made a huge difference in the outcome of the analysis.

September 20, 2018 at 11:28 PM

Thank you Anon for your encouraging words.

I am not familiar with the case of the French woman.

Would you have a link?

M said...

Facts of the case--

Indicted suspect had been recently released from prison, recently moved to apartment 2 miles from the Celis family.
He gave the police info leading to her body.

RIP Isa.

Girls Who Vanished Less Than a Mile Apart Were Murdered by the Same Man, Police Allege

An Arizona man is accused of kidnapping and murdering two girls in separate incidents in 2012 and 2014, PEOPLE confirms.

Christopher Clements, 36, has been charged with the murders of 6-year-old Isabel Celis and 13-year-old Maribel Gonzalez, who vanished less than one mile from each other, the Tucson Police Department announced at a press conference Saturday.

On April 21, 2012, Isabel was taken from her bedroom in her Tucson home and her remains weren’t found for years. Maribel went missing on June 3, 2014, while walking from her home to her friend’s house nearby.

Three days later, Maribel’s body was found near an intersection in Northern Tucson, Tucson Police Chief Chris Magnus said at the press conference. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department investigated the case and Maribel’s manner of death was determined to be a homicide.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Kidnap and abducted are not used interchangeably; the former implies for ransom. There are a couple hundred words in the English language and though many are synonymous, per se, each one has a specific meaning. The beauty of the language is in that usage. In addition to the understanding that word usage is relevant in a statement analysis. Regardless, the choice was abducted as opposed to taken. A stronger word; forceful and demanding and deliberate.
A teen doesn't see a distinction between one word or another? Not surprised, as it takes years to appreciate and be exposed to the variety in language.

M said...

"A teen doesn't see a distinction between one word or another? Not surprised, as it takes years to appreciate and be exposed to the variety in language."


Yet Sergio is expected to differentiate and make the distinction, as an adult native is presumed to? Why?

I have seen much made of the use of "abducted" versus "kidnapped", not of the word "taken".

At the link, there is a discussion of the two words, kidnapping and abduction, their meaning and use, showing that the two meanings are very similar and their nuances of meaning are not shared by all, even native speakers.

Anonymous said...

M, why do you keep referencing the clear eyes example. It's a descriptive term relating to the color of her eyes. Minor and 8nsignificant and no different than cultural distinctions found from states to state or region to region in the US.

There are numerous flags in Sergio' statement that glare that have no reasonable cultural or linguistic bias. He speaks fluently, does not translate and for all you or I know was born in the US.Nor is he struggling with the concept of a pronoun and unsure how to use one. Nor i he asserting his masculinity as a typical Latino.
I aporeciate your desire to safeguard cultural and linguistic integrity;, but, this is not the case for it.

M said...

"M, why do you keep referencing the clear eyes example. "

Why do I cite it?

Because it undeniably exists as a clear example of Sergio's using a term and not being understood due to a reference that only someone from his culture would make.

In the SA, the question is asked when analyzing "What are clear eyes?".

This is significant because if the statement had been reviewed in conjunction with a competent expert in the language and culture of the speaker, this question would not have been asked, the answer would have been clear and the analyzer informed.

The fact that the question was asked shows a lack of information and cultural understanding.

This is one example of Sergio's language reflecting his background, and the fact that other instances that are not so obvious may well exist in his statement is not considered.

In the Kavanaugh case SA above, the subject's context is mentioned in comments by Peter, so the subject does not seem to be "dead".

He states that,
"To avoid the political context is to be disingenuous to analysis.
As to outside info:
the accuser and her family are activists."

Yet in the Celis case, the cultural context does seem to have been avoided or not considered, or else the question "What are clear eyes?" would not have been asked in the SA.

I feel that to avoid the cultural context is also to be disingenuous to analysis, and reflects a lack of fairness to a non Anglo subject.

Anonymous said...

Does Sergio have a connection w the sex offender ?

Statement Analysis Blog said...


You’re wrong incessantly.

This is about statement analysis.

We question everything. This avoids the very errors you use.

If a kid says, “I played monopoly” we don’t contact a linguistic expert to learn what monopoly is.

We ask the kid.

When the kid explains “monopoly” is a game of sexual abuse with mom’s boyfriend, the linguistic expert isn't from thevAmerican toy manufacturer.

The expert is the victim.

This blog is fur statement analysis. Enough of your interpretations and apologetics. We will let tine pass and the results of the case unfold.

Investigators let the subject define his or her own words, regardless of language, culture or setting.

Peter Hyatt


Statement Analysis Blog said...

You don’t think investigators have posed this question?


Anonymous said...

There meanings are similar, as in taken illegally by force; but, with the addition of ransom attached to kidnapping. And yes I think anyone capable of using the word abducted as opposed to taken is capable of making a distinction among various synonyms and when to use them. And Sergio is fluent and a full grown man in his 40s. He didn't just arrive last Tuesday.

At any rate, I am focusing on the simpler less complicated word "taken" as opposed to the more complex word "abducted", which our poor, barely coherent, struggling, bi-lingual, immigrant, who can't wrap his mind around pronouns and eye color used in a 911 call.

Anonymous said...

Oh for goodness sakes it's eye color, asked by one and explained by the other, irrelevant and exaggerated by you to make a point that has no bearing.

M said...

Thank you Peter for your response.

I am a longtime blog follower and respect your experience and expertise in SA, and also your courage in exploring controversial subjects.

It is my belief that I have presented relevant linguistic and cultural facts that cannot be fairly termed as "interpretations and apologetics".

I have done so respectfully to represent a minority view., and I appreciate having this forum to learn and share ideas with others.

If it is indeed your wish that I not pursue this subject, this is your blog, you are the SA expert, and I will certainly honor your wishes.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
George G. George said...

Isa looks a lot like Maribel. I wonder if the SO saw her at baseball games and watched her and befriended Sergio to get closer to Isa. I get a feeling Sergio knew the SO.

George G. George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
habundia said...

@Unknown I did not mean calculating by guessing or any way of interepting.....I did mean when things like deception keeps coming back in the statement....instead of it only came out will give more gravity if it keeps popping up as if it didn't

Also counting words is part of SA
Also looking at 25%,50%,25% rate as for "a balanced" statement.

Not based on guessing or interepting but by counting and analysing through the words given by the subject

habundia said...

when I think of abduction I always have to think about 'aliens'
Therefore I would use abduction if it wasn't know who took the missing person.
Kidnapping would be when the offender is known, like when a parent "kidnapped a child to a foreign country or into hiding....while abduction is done someone unknown
But that's how I see it

habundia said...

these homicides doesn't seem the same at all.
Like he first kidnaps a child from her bed...and gets away with it....why would be to on to abduct a child from the street?
Did he really lead them to her remains or did he lead them to the remains of Maribel and when they went on looking to see for clues and investigation that they stumbled upon Isa?
That to me us not clear from media messages

habundia said...

clear eyes are no eye color.
Clear eyes tells something about how they are....not what color.
Sergio tells they are 'a little green', this is odd because eyes aren't 'a little colored". ...they could be mixed coloured...but not 'a little'

habundia said...

"A "psyscho-linguistc profile" is the result of applying Statement Analysis techniques within a statement to learn the subject's

a. background,
b. experiences in life,
c. priority or priorities
d. dominant personality traits

All four elements are from the subject's own language; not from body language, nor from activity, nor even from any diagnostic tool previously used. It is limited specifically to language.

So doesn't that mean that their background isn't integrated into their language? It seems contradicting when you say you shouldn't consider their background in their language.

The kid who explains 'monopoly' as sexual abuse experience....doesn't do that because the kid was taught 'monopoly is a board game'4his background learned him to use these words in that specific meaning instead of the meaning most of us will have for this word.
Why wouldn't that count for foreign language speakers?

Tania Cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

habundia said...

you are starting to mix things.

the linguistic profiling is not the same as deception detection. in profiling the accuracy drops to around 70% accurate if done by experienced advanced analysts.

in the monopoly example the point is we do not interpret what the kid means by the word monopoly but we ask the question, what does he mean? and the kid is the only one who can tell us.

with second language. analysis must be different and normally either not done or done in groups with experienced analysts and with less emphasis on the words and go more to the content.

in this case we see that the father is not linguistically positive when speaking about his daughter.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

You confuse two issues: interpretation and background.

Asking, “What are clear eyes?” avoids interpretation. It does not ignore background. It asks a question.

Legally sound interviews avoid interpretation.

We allow background to emerge on its own. We don’t assume. We listen.

He would explain what “clear eyes” mean, from his background, if asked.

Enough abused children reporting “special ice cream cones” means asking, “What does special ice cream cone look like?” and
“When do you have it?”
“Who gives you a special ice cream cone?”

We would not interpret this.
We would not dismiss it as “background” in order to defend a pedopphile abuser.

It would be, regrettably,,part of the victim’s background and the abuser’s background (MO).


Anonymous said...


Why can you not accept what Peter is saying? If you have truly been a long time follower of this blog you would have hopefully understood the basics.

You are clearly defending this man purely on his culture. If you understand the SA principles use them to challenge Peter and the rest of us. To use a phrase as "you are a cultural expert" lends nothing to legitimate challenges to the science of Statement Analysis. If you truly wish to learn SA then challenge with the principles, accept or reject but stop projecting and continuing these non sensical points.

Like you English is not my first language but the SA principles work for all the languages I speak plus for when I use English.

There's decades of research into SCAN/Statement Analysis etc. So if you truly wish to learn then research, investigate and may be even pay for a course. However from the brief analysis of your postings I would suggest you don't join any course as your obvious biases will prevent you from reaching the truth - as the truth may not fit into your perceived understanding of your reality and that will hurt.

habundia said...

thanks for your explanation I get the difference now!

habundia said...

thanks for your response. I am still learning. I do get that through questions you come to know what the subject means with certain words or frases, and that the analyst isn't to intercept it themselves with their interpretation of the word(s), frases as given because they speak from second language only if the subject self is telling it from being raised a certain culture (and why they would use it as a kind of excuse for not being truth full.


secrets said...

It would be part of the victim’s background and the pedoclown’s background.

Lars Bak said...

Hi M:

To read so much onto the use of the word abduct over kidnap is to project meanings and connotations that others do not necessarily share, possibly to their detriment.

You miss the very fundamental principle that in SA there are no synonyms. The reason?

Because different words have different "meanings and connotations that others do not necessarily share".

Anonymous said...


Truth is truth. It is not "gringo" or "non Anglican" or from "a minority point of view" It is just Truth.

Put down your racist-colored glasses and learn the science.

Anonymous said...

The fbi is never wrong and wouldn’t fudge something just to close a case and take glory from police.

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

Steller column: After indictment, we owe the parents of Isabel Celis an apology

In 2015, a Maine man who has trained police officers in Arizona and around the country, Peter Hyatt, published online an extremely detailed ”statement analysis” of the parents’ interviews and 911 calls.
He concluded “The language employed by Sergio Celis was consistent with sexual homicide.”

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Yes, this "journalist" told me to call him.

With an indictment, does the journalist

a. report facts?
b. issue social commentary?

If Sergio Celis is arrested or implicated, I will not call for the author of the article to apologize to me. That is not my role as analyst, no more than it is his role as a journalist.

I have reviewed the analysis, and have sought peer review. Thus far, there have been no corrections.

Tomorrow, a team of professionals will analyze the 911 call and I will post their findings.

Consider also: subsequent statements by Sergio Celis are also "deception indicated."

I re-posted the analysis for professionals from the US, Canada, W Europe and Australia to freely weigh in to point out any specific errors.

This is the point of a scientific system; If an error exists, it should be located and corrected.

There is always the possibility of:

a. attendant crimes
b. rare exception

"a" would mean the subject had guilty knowledge (sexual molestation)
"b" would then be weighed against subsequent interviews by the subject.

That he was consistent in his deception makes "b" very unlikely.

"a": I once indicated a father for deception in his missing child. A pedophile killed her.

Why was he indicated for deception?

I later found out.

He was on drugs, under the influence, when his toddler left the home, to her death. It is why he was lying. This is an example of an "attendant crime."

as to the conclusion: "The language employ3ed by Sergio Celis was consistent with sexual homicide" remains my conclusion.


Shannon said...

You just analyze statements and flag deception, inconsistencies, etc. Then your analysis is used, at will, by investigators and interviewers as a potential guide? You reported what you found. That's what you do. I don't understand how any criticism could be directed at you.

Anonymous said...

Unknown said...

Anonymous said...

that discredits good body language experts. body language excels in picking up on fight or flight situations on many other things it is a weak tool and left to interpretations.

give ten body language experts and you will have ten different results.

Michael said...

Peter, I don't think your analysis was wrong. Just because they arrested a "suspect" does not mean the suspect did it. Sergio leaked time of death as well as likely manner of death. If I recall, from my own analysis, Isabel died shortly after the baseball game and was likely hit by a baseball bat by Sergio.

The men in blue get it wrong a LOT.
It's very sad, but true.
Innocent people have been fried.
Evidence can easily be mistaken or lied about.

Shannon said...

Michael are you unaware that the "suspect", Clements,led the police to Isabel's remains by accompanying them to the location and walking them to where she was? Additionally, the child Maribel, had been found in the same location 3 years before. Clements DNA was a match to that retrieved from that child years before.Charges and convictions against Clements have included; child molestation, burglary, fraud, child photograph. Clements has also indicated that there are other bodies at the location and offered this info: who what, where and how if all charges against him are dropped. They chose to indict him for murder, instead. Hardly a mere suspect who could most likely be innocent.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

The team of professionals analyzed the 911 call and reviewed video of interview.

I asked them to reduce sensitivity indicators wherever possible giving a “pass” for any non 100% consensus. I asked them to play “devil’s advocate” against my analysis.

I hope to post their notes and video shortly.


Michael said...

Shannon, I was not aware of that, but what difference does it make? They could have fed him the location after finding her body so he could parrot it back to them. It happens ALL the time!

They'll tell the suspect, "we found a body at location X" Tell us where you put her & describe a detail only the killer would know."
"Um I put her in location X and she was wearing a barette that fell off!"

"Oh wow! This is our guy! We got him!@

Michael said...

Shannon, If their suspect was really Isabel's killer, why would he think that ALL charges could be dropped if he gave police info? That reeks of coerced confession & no killer is going to think that if he actually killed--he would know there is a price to be paid.

Michael said...

In the 911 call, Sergio

1) mentions everyone taking a shower
2) establishes alibi "was right on the other side of the wall watching a baseball gane and HEARD NOTHING".
3) does not request help for victim, but complains that his wife is "hysterical".
4) says "Sorry"
5) says "hello", says "goodbye"

Also, wouldn't the screen pop INTO the house if intruder came from outside? Sergio says it was lying on the grass.

Shannon said...

Michael. The police did not feed him information. Clements fiance called the FBI. They 8nterviewed Clements who said he would take them to isabel's remains, if they would drop the unrelated burglary charges he was currently in jail for and return the car that was impounded. He took them to her remains. A warrant was obtained to search his prior residence close to the Celis house. Evidence was taken. In a letter to his girlfriend from jail, he said there were 2 more bodies in that location. And that he knew how, where, who and why. He also said he would produce a murder weapon and a videotape of Sergio in a pawn shop that would explain his involvement if they drop all unrelated charges from yet another burglary charge in Maricopa County. Instead of dropping more charges in unrelated cases, he was indicted and then brought to Pima county jail for his arraignment. The suspect isn't saying he is not involved. He is saying 5hat others are involved as well.

Shannon said...

Clements was in Tucson's Pima county jail in February 2017 on burglary charges. He called his fiance in February and told her to dig up something from their yard
What she dug up had Isabel Celis name on it, She called the FBI. They interviewed Clements. Clements took them to Isabel's remains located close to where Maribel Gonzalez had been found 3 years earlier. From the DNA collected at the time from Maribel they later discovered sometime n June 2017 was a match with Clements. The deal that was made in February was to drop burglary charges in Pima in 3xchange for showing them where isabel was. Pima dropped charges on March 30th but there were also charges of burglary in Maricopa county az.Clements was extradited to Phoenix. Warrants, searches, personal computer evidence, DNA etc led to the indictment. There is too much to write here. You can look all this up.

Shannon said...

And yes. I wrote that prior to the release of instigation reports and documents. Now, the dates add up, as well. Clements, I believe, is wishing to suggest, he is the clean up guy rather than the kidnapper and murder. Maybe, he is, maybe he isn't. Either way he is no mere suspect coerced by authorities.

Michael said...

What did he bury in his yard with her name on it?

Sergio was involved.

Why is there video of Sergio in a pawn shop in the suspect's possession?

Do you see how convoluted this is?

I can't stress to you enough, Shannon, ALWAYS go with what SA says.

Peter himself underestimates the accuracy of his own craft.

If Sergio reads "guilty", he is.

Same as if a suspect reads "innocent", he is.

Michael said...


alibi building
did not ask for help for Isabel
said "little shorts"
told what he was watching on TV in 911 call

Sergio is SO FULL OF IT!

Laura said...

Interview with Celis parents

At around 8:30 is where I get the feeling that something happened to Isabel.

The mother says that just she brought Isabel home and that Isabel then took a shower and took "forever" in the shower "like usual" and "hung out" in the shower.
What 4 yr old hangs out in the shower? Regardless, if she was being molested, that is probably where it was occurring was during "showertime". Is there any proof that Isabel actually took the shower before Sergio came home? Very sensitive SA red flags going off surrounding the showertime that night!

Shannon said...

Michael. Did you miss the part where the self- revealed suspect led them to Isabel's remains close to where Maribel jad been found years prior with the suspects DNA on her? They found a small child size goody, a school paper with her name on it, computer history with child pornography, searches on abducted kids,Isabel celiis sexy , a letter he wrote to his girlfriend regarding isabel and Maribel and 2 other bodies buried out there. In the letter he also stated he can say who how why and where. If you absolutely refuse to consider all this evidence, then I am at a loss. He is not denying his involvement at all. He is trying to suggest more to it particularly with respect to Sergio and others with other children over years.

It is as if he wants to suggest he is the guy who disposes of the bodies rather than the killer. Maybe he is. He insists he has evidence, such as a surveillance video and the weapon used. Let him produce it
But you can't just ignore that he took the police to her, claims there are others, is a convicted multiple times child molester since he was 15, a burglar, involved in fraudulent schemes and has provided the police with all kinds of info or led them to evidence that has caused his arrest where he hoped burglary charges would be dropped cause he knows stuff but didnt do it?!?!? The guy tricks elderly women into leaving their homes so he can break and enter. He penetrated a 3 year old, an 11 year old.
Maybe he is the cleaner, maybe Sergio is involved. But all he has to do is produce the evidence and he can be co victed of after the fact stuff that he must have thought was better than burglary charges. Or he thought he would be excused from it all if he reveals the real killers.
Btw. SA is a guide to direct the investigation to produce evidence. It isn't the evidence itself. I think when a child molester takes you to the body, you might want to look at that evidence.

Shannon said...

Laura, the game was over around 10 according to the coach, the family and other families. Isabel was 6 not 4. Forever is a relative term. Maybe he killed her and had the cleaner Clements dispose of the body. Maybe Clements kidnapped and killed her, then disposed of the body. Sergio an actor and clearly is more interested in how he appears and what people think, as is Becky. Self- centered doesn't mean killer. Clements has been molesting little girls since he was 15, has a history of fraud and burglary. He took the police to where her body was in exchange for dropped burglary charges. We can speculate about Sergio until the end of time based on speech patterns, voice and body language. But the indicted killer with all 5he physical evidence and his taking them to isabel, on 5he same location as Maribel, with his DNA matching what they collected from Maribel 3 years ago? That's hard evidence of serious involvement. Clements says he can produce evidence that also involves other children and killers over time related to other bodies buried out there. Then let him.

Unknown said...

Shannon said...

a little patience and the story will fill itself in.

Shannon do you have a link to your information?

the 911 call of Sergio shows guilty knowledge and a negative linguistic disposition to Isabel. the interview with Isabel's parents show the same negative disposition and acceptance that she is dead in their language. and a complete lack of concern for Isabel's well being also an indicator they know she is dead, this being only a few days after disappearance.

this doesn't mean they killed her. it does indicate involvement and knowledge.

there are also indicators of sexual abuse in the fathers language. these things could make him look guilty for her disappearance even if he didn't disappear her. why there are reasons for them to think her dead is what makes them look complicit.

in my opinion there is a link.

Michael said...


You are stating that even the suspect is suggesting Sergio is involved.

Did the suspect break in through the window & abduct Isabel?

That is the smoking gun. Nothing else. Not a paper with a name on it that he says ge has. A letter he wrote to his girlfriend from jail stating where dead bodies are located (you do realize prison staff open & read all incoming & outgoing mail and would never allow such a letter to leave the jail?) Not alleged DNA on another body. Not previous criminal record, however horrific

Did the suspect abduct Isabel via her bedroom window? THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW. We need to study the language, actions, and individuals present clise to the time of the abduction. Put your magnifying glass on THAT time frame. Therein lie the clues needed to find the killer.

SA is the ONLY reliable evidence.

Unfortunately, I know this to be true.

Shannon said...

I dont know if I can send the screen short. I dont think I can. No i cant Look up chilling court documents Clements posted in the tucson newspaper. Or go to the isabel mercedes celis facebook page. The people who run that page post all news articles That news headline will appear.Follwing a detailed synopsis you will find a document copy of the investigative report.
How dare you suggest such a link doesn't exist. If you moved forward 6 years instead of burying your nose in a SA from 2012, you would have seen this as well as his criminal record and many other things since his indictment.

Shannon said...

I give up. If it bit you on the nose you wouldn't acknowledge it. Do some research. Btw SA is not evidence. Just direction for an investigation, for god's sake. Go do some research on 5his case and learn a little about the law while you are at it.

Unknown said...

Shannon said...

I did not suggest the link does not exist, I asked if you had one.

it is a yes or no answer.

I was hoping you could post it as I am interested to read the information and possible context.

your response is unexpected.

Michael said...

Sergio did it & he didn't have a "cleaner".

This isn't Breaking Bad.

Sergio leaks indicators that he did it!

His laughter in the 911 call all by itself speaks volumes!

Their lack of concern speaks volumes and in fact is MORE RELEVANT than the suspect's ramblings about allehed murder weapon etc.

Do not underestimate the gravity of Sergio's laughter right after finding his daughter has been abducted.

This is an indicator he wanted Isabel dead. What else can it mean? Laughter is a sign of happiness, an indicator of a casual & jovial attitude towards a given topic! The topic is his abducted & probable dead 6 year old! Dont underestimate the implications of his laughter in the 911 call.

Anonymous said...

Sergio is a diabolical, probably demon-possessed man.

Shannon said...

Shannon said...

Shannon said...

Obviously you are not going to click on the link and read the synopsis and subsequent document. You are going to refute even the suspect himself in favor of a SA where a disinterested in anyone but himself father is reporting a missing child

Michael said...

I just read the link. I was reading Peter's analysis ( which is superb--one of his best) and didn't know you had posted it.

My opinion: It sounds like Sergio had a dumping ground and somehow the suspect knew about it. Maybe he was sitting around smoking crack and saw Sergio dumping a body? Or maybe Sergio told someone who told him.

The "evidence" proves nothing other than the guy knew there was a dumping ground.

container with a paper that said mercedez== unrelated to case
photos in jail bible that he claimed were of the home = unrelated to case
letter from jail about dead bodies locations = jail would never allow the letter to leave and again, it proves nothing even if it did somehow get through.

location of murder weapon that he refuses to give = um, this is not proof, it is nothing unless he gives the location...he is making it up to try to get all the charges dropped

computer searches it sounds like he did when he heard of the case. It makes no sense that he googled those terms before the case.

The only thing which seems likely is that the suspect knew of a dumping ground and he is by far not the only person who knows the location of a dumping ground. Especially if he has ties to some kind of organized crime and possibly Sergio does too. Where the NY jogger was found, the whole community knew it was a former mafia dumping ground. Does that mean they all killed the jogger?

I don't find anything in the document compelling as far as indicating the suspect's alleged guilt. He sounds more like a John Mark Karr who is a pervert and got obssessed with Isabel after the case and may even be so obssessed that he is falsely incriminating himself like John Mark Carr. That is not an uncommon occurrence when a case receives a lot of media coverage--people falsely confess. This guy is a John Mark Carr.

Segio did it.

Shannon said...

Obviously, you dont live around here. People smoke crack everywhere. No need to go 40 miles from your home 5o do it. Never were any drug charges or convictions against, btw.

At any rate my original and only point was that Clements is not just some mere suspect the authorities have ensnared with entrapment.

The extent of Clements involvement and motives, Sergios involvement and motives will eventually be revealed with testimony and evidence.


Laura said...

As an aside, I was glad to see that Peter added "window" to his list of linguistic indicators of possible sexual abuse, as well it should be. Any "escape route" would come into the mind of an individual under attack, as well as I bet the perp is also concerned about "windows" and whether anyone can see what he is doing or see his victim screaming for help, etc.

I have noticed it mentioned in accounts of sexual attack, including being mentioned many times by Michelle Knight and Ariel Castro's other victims, as well, as by Castro himself (in the context of him fearing someone saw something which might give away his keeping sex slaves when his girlfriend saw a TV illuminating an upstairs room through a window.)

In the Isabel case, there is a lot of sensitivity surrounding the window, as Peter pointed out, including oldest son "noticing" window opened, screen LAYING on the ground, etc.

I noticed "window" featured prominently in the Madeleine case, where the mother notices the curtains blowing in the wind by Madeleine's window.

I'm sure it is also probably mentioned many other times in other cases, but I think it is very important in this case.

Michael said...

@Shannon, I'm not saying that the authorities ensnared him, although do not underestimate how eager they are to "get their guy", so even if the suspect is coming off as a goofball, they are going to jump at the chance to believe him and tie any so-called "evidence" that he "says" he knows about to Isabel. After reading your link, it sounds like he is a John Mark Karr combined with someone who thinks he can use his "knowledge" to get off of other charges in a way that makes no sense. It does not sound like he is all there mentally.

Shannon said...

I have said numerous times that he is using and in fact did use his knowledge to trade for dropped charges. And continue to use it for all charges to be dropped that were unrelated AMD Michael own up "tell the suspect we found a body.." reread your own words.

How are pictures of the Celis house unrelated to the case?

By the way, I dont place too much credence into what the cellmate reported. Not because I think he is lying or exaggerating, but, because it is an account of what the suspect said repeated by another party, uncorroborated by the person who said it and may not be remembered perfectly.

I also noticed you did not address the match of DNA found on Maribel Gozales. Does one assume that Clements also witnessed that dumping and what exactly? Tampered with her body?

We live close to the border of people who routinely cut peoples heads off and smuggle dr.ugs and illegals into the state. The outskirts of Tucson and Marana are nothing but desert and washes. How likely is it that with the numerous places that bodies can be dumped that Clements witnessed 2 dumping for sure and maybe more in one of the 100s of possible locations with the dumpers never noticing him?

Shannon said...

Window? How else and with what word would Sergio use to describe the WINDOW that was open in his daughter's room. This is a key statement about the state of her room and how an 8btruder may enter. This is not some random reference to windows. This is when the analysis becomes a little absurd.

Unknown said...

Anonymous Shannon said...

Thanks Shannon.

Unknown said...

Shannon said...
I have said numerous times that he is using and in fact did use his knowledge to trade for dropped charges.

again thanks for the link.

the trade to drop charges is weird. who asks to dropped burglary charge by confessing to sexual assault and multiple murders?

I will wait to see how this plays out.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Today, a third team of professionals will

a. Peer review and critique analysis
b. Analyze the statement (911 call)
c. Analyze the first televised interview of the parents.

I hope to post the complete notes, criticism, review, and conclusion soon after.

Those who wish to do some preliminary work can go to you tube to the first video interview, but begin with an exercise:

*What do you expect the biological parents of an abducted child (the father's words from the 911 call) to be?

a. Who will be their priority?
b. Who will get the most amount of words dedicated towards?
c. What is the linguistic disposition towards:

The victim?
The abductor?

and so on,.

It is a practice exercise and you should attempt to make assumptions based upon reading (or investigating) cases where an abduction is claimed.

Peter Hyatt

George G. George said...

Sergio's 911 call is disturbing to me. He seemed too casual. He didn't act like a parent of a missing child. His reporting sounded unnatural and scripted. He didn't sound panicked that his six-year-old daughter was missing. Was Sergio on drugs at the time of 911 call? Opiates perhaps? Did Sergio sometimes lose track of Isa's whereabouts? Did he believe she was safe and would eventually return but made 911 call just in case, or out of expectation? Was there a threat to the family because of a drug deal gone bad?

Shannon said...

He never confessed to sexual assault or murder. it.

You're welcome.

Laura said...

Mommy Celis' words of what she did "laying clothes out" & what Isabel said about how she wanted her hair done when they got home from the baseball game reek of fabrication.

I don't believe Issbel returned home from the game.

someone disposed of her on the way home, I believe.

Mom says Isabel "hurt her knee or something" at the game

What really happened to Isabel?

Someone could have hurt Isabel in the woods or bathroom at the park.


Michael said...

Shannon, he claims the pics in his jail bible were of the Celis house? How do we know they are? How did he get the pics into the prison? Has anyone seen these alleged pics?

His DNA was found near a different body?
On what? Where was it found?

Shannon said...

Michael, at this point you have the exact information as stated in the document as I do. The cellmate said he had pictures of the Celis house. I dont know if he did or how he did or who saw them.

DNA recovered from the body of Maribal Gonzalez and the analysis, thereof, was compared to Clements and determined a match. Maibel was a 13 year old girl whose body was found in the Trico rd area in 2014. At the time, the current team that accompanied Clements to Isabel's remainder was unaware of the previous discovery years before in the same area. During the subsequent investigation, the department connected the two, retrieved the DNA data from Maribel and determined the match.

It took from February of 2017 until September of 2018 before the evidence went before the grand jury. I dont believe they took anything for granted and certainly believe they had an iron clad case after a year and a half.

Additionally, what is being offered to the public is most likely only a smidgeon of what they know and the evidence they have
We are being offered an outline with a couple details of how the investigation proceeded from the point of recovering Isabel.

If you look at the video of Clements arraignmen, aside from slight contempt and arrogance, Clements responds to the next hearing date when changed from October to November...that he would like to take care of it here while in county rather than being transferred back and forth from Tucson to Phoenix.

I thought it an odd thing to say, as though he believes the whole thing will be wrapped up soon in Tucson. The only way that could happen is if he pleads guilty.

Michael, I found Sergio to be a narcissist. He is infinitely more interested in how he looks, sounds appears to the public than the welfare of his daughter. He is also an actor and opera singer. I think he steps outside of himself(if there is a cohesive self) and performs. But it doesn't mean he hurt his daughter. If he really is a narcissist, he can't connect to real feelings and can only mimic, anyway.

Clements is a burglar, he defrauds people, breaks into their houses and steal. He has been molesting little girls in 4 different states since he was 15. That he escalated from molestation to breaking in a stealing then killing his victims after stalking them seems likely. He lived close to Isabel.
He has confessed to nothing that has been reported to the public.

If Sergio has something to do with this, it will come out. Neither he nor Necky have made a single statement since this came out. By contrast Maribels mom has made 3 interviews. The Celis' brought a lawyer to the arraignment. Maribels mom arrived alone.

In any case, I cant analyze evidence I dont have. It would appear likely that Clements is the guilty murderer. It would appear that Sergio is a self involved narcissist concerned with image.

If there are various combinations of involvement from both or others, it will come out.

Shannon said...

Michael, I wanted to elaborate a little on the speculation of Sergio as a possible narcissist.

I have degrees in history and special ed and have taught both. But more relevant is my experience with adults with disabilities for 5 years. O was an employment specialist, not a clinician. To find the most appropriate match for sustainable employment, I had to thoroughly understand personality disorders as well as the whole gammet of physical and mental disabilities. The 9nes with personality disorders were few but profound.
They are preoccupied with self image and mirror and mimic human emotions and emote them as much as possible when deemed necessary. This can give the impression of deceit and acting. When all they are likely doing is attempting to act like anyone would act in such a situation because they cannot genuinely experience the feeling or connection. Also, their egos insist that everything revolve around them and they are very sensitive to scrutiny and real or perceived insults. Sergio was obviously upset about how the public viewed his 911 call. And both he and Becky asked during an interview for people to tell them how they should act because they dont know. There are many similar references to these kinds of things.

Mummyratclife said...

Come on Peter, I'm dying for you to post the evaluation by your peers of the 911 call!! I've just been berated on another website for giving my opinion that I still believe Sergio Celis had something to do with this. I believe your analysis 100% but can't wait for the further reassurance of other experts in the SA field.

Anonymous said...

Where's the new evaluation?

flightfulbird said...

I'm late to the discussion on this case - very late, for I did not hear the 911 call from Sergio Celis until yesterday. I've been fascinated reading the analysis and comments on the call and the case.

His words and explanations sounded so scripted and planned right out of the gate - but his laughter after he said he told his wife to get her butt home (from work) was the last straw for me. This has been said before but there's no way that sounded like a guy who woke up and found his daughter gone/disappeared and thought someone had taken her from their house and was frantic.

I too would love to see more analysis / evaluation and comments about that call. It doesn't add up in my mind that Sergio "had no idea" this was going to happen - or no idea of what actually happened.

Off topic, but sort of like Davey Blackburn had no idea anyone had been in his house- NOBODY believes that. That's a 911 call I would really like to hear - almost three years later.

My immediate impression was that Sergio Celis was just too composed and calm and laughing and scripted in that call.

Transcript from CNN, including a Nancy Grace show

From the above link -

You know, you just heard Shah say that a lot of people are nervous on 911 but, Jennifer Smetters, family law attorney, Chicago, if there ever is a trial, this 911 call is going to be played, state's exhibit number one.

Absolutely, and it's going to be extremely damaging. There is nothing that I could perceive in this man's voice that has any sense of drama, emotion, emergency, desperation. Those are the emotions that a father who's scared to death as to the whereabouts of his baby child would be. We don't hear that.