Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Isabel Celis Murder: The 911 Call


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

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

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

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



Dispatcher:911 what's your emergency?

Sergio Celis: want to report missing person ,my little girl who's six years old, I believe she was abducted from our house.

a.  I”psychological presence in his desire or “want” to report a missing “person” 
b.  “want” creates subtle distance – he does not say “my daughter is missing!” but expresses a “want” for himself.
c.  “person” is gender neutral; does he want to make a “missing persons report” and if so, is this how he sees the victim? “Missing Person” suggests process; waiting, searching, etc.  Formality? 
d.  my little girl” is ISI and is not his daughter 
e.  believe” is a weak assertion; is it appropriately weak or inappropriately weak? 
f.    abduction” is a conclusion; to have a conclusion indicates the subject has processed the information about the “missing person” 
g.  “abduction” is for a reason
h.  “abduction” can be violent
i.    Could “abduction” be a parent’s worst nightmare? We look for this question to be answered in the statement. Either it will be affirmed (+), negated (-) or unaddressed (0) 
j.    Does the subject have any connection to Mexico, where abduction is common?  How long has he been in the U.S.?  If long term, connection to Mexico may be lessened or non existent. 
k.   She was “abducted” from “our” house. 

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




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

Dispatcher: Tucson Police Department, Gabhart




Sergio: Hello, I need to report uh, missing child.

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

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

What changed in reality?
Is the subject working from script?


 I believe she was abductedfrom my house.

What has changed from his first line?
a.  He  has a “need” rather than a “want” 
b.  Our house is now my house and the victim is a “child.” 
c.  “believe” is weak assertion; it is appropriate (guess work, his deepest fear) or is it inappropriate because he has evidence of an “abduction”?
d.  It is now “his” house (possession) and the missing person is “a” child; not his child. 



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

This question should have not been necessary.  

Sergio: Yes

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

Dispatcher: Why do you think she abducted?

He has reported her “abducted” and he has repeated this claim while she was:
a.  A missing person
b.  My little girl
c.  A missing child 

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

Context: the biological father of a missing 6 year old has stated his belief that an abduction (not kidnapping, nor missing) has taken place. The natural question follows: Why do you think such a thing?
Abduction” goes to the conclusion of the initial mystery. This means the subject must either be familiar with abductions (Mexico?), have thought it through (time to process) or has direct evidence of an abduction (ransom note). His priority is his want/need to report an abduction. As part of his priority, it must be for a reason. 


Sergio:  have no idea. 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a.  we”to describe the state of waking up; not that “he” woke up.  This is not expected. We expect the biological father to tell us what he did. This is his child and his phone call. The need to be with “others” is acute. 
b.  woke up”; this is often associated with alibi building. He could not be involved because he would have to be sleeping (he did not say he was sleeping) in order to “wake” up.  We want him to tell us what he did, what he saw, and what he thinks. Alibi building as a priority should be explored. 
c.  this morning” is unnecessary and suggests passing of time. This should be a call being made literally moments after seeing her not in her bed.  Recall that “abduction” takes time to process. 
d.  Hina Clause: here he tells the police dispatch why “we” went to her room. This is unnecessaryand very sensitive information. He also does not want to be “alone” with going to her room. Police investigators nor Dispatch would have thought to ask a parent, “why did you go into her room?” unless he had triggered this question by preempting it.  
e.  “went to go” is intention and it slows down the pace. Did he actually go in?  If “we” woke up and “we” went in, did both parents?  He uses intention and does so in the plural, without reporting what he actually did. 
f.    and she's gone. This is to move into “passive voice” which is not a grammatical term, but a psychological term. We look to see not only the employment of passivity, but of a atmosphere of distancing language.  The subject is not reporting, “someone took her”, or “the kidnapper took her” or even “Isabel was abducted by a stranger!” 
It removes all human responsibility for this action. 

Passivity example: 

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



woke up my, my sons, I, we looked everywhere in the house and my oldest son noticed her window was wide open and the screen was laying the backyard. We've looked all around the house, my son…"

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

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

a.   “noticed” is sometimes used when a person is anticipating or has looked for something. Did not “we” (mom and dad?) notice when they went “to go get her” that her window was “wide open” for their missing child? The subject may be attempting to describe “happenstance” and for his son to experience it. If the son was out searching, "noticed" or happenstance, is not likely given the location (the victim's bathroom). It would be a stand out. This is the subject's verbalized perception; not the son's. 
b.  “laying” is an inanimate object with human body posture. This is often seen when a subject has had physical contact with the inanimate object. 
c.   Our subject had to be sleeping, in order to wake up, and his son “noticed” the window “wide open” and the screen “laying”; 

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

Victim still without a name. 

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

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

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

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

Inanimate objects with human connection to subjects is key. 

Before his son “noticed”, we have this:

“ we looked everywhere in the house” and then

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

What about in Isabel's room?

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

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

woke up my, my sons, I, we looked everywhere in the house and my oldest son noticed her window was wide open and the screen was laying the backyard. We've looked all around the house, my son…"

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

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

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

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

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


Dispatcher: Okay, hang on.

(Dispatch interrupts him) 

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

a.   “yeah” is to agree (“yes”) that they are making an effort to “look for her”
b.  Is this a “need to persuade” how helpful and diligent they are?
c.   “running” is repeated (sensitive) showing urgency. We would not think they were not in earnest or urgency in context. 




Dispatcher: the screen was on the ground outside?

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

Sergio: Yes

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

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



Dispatcher: What's her address?
Sergio: 5602 E. 12th Street.
Dispatcher: What's your name sir?
Sergio: My name is Sergio, S-E-R-G-I-O, middle initial D, last name is C-E-L-I-S,
Dispatcher: I-S as in Sam?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay, what's her name?
Sergio: Isabel, I-S-B-E-L, uh, I-S-A-B-E-L, M as in manis the middle initial

Misspelling of his “little girl” name;
Note when using an example for “M”, he went to “man.”

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

 Consider this in the context of abduction. 

Dispatcher: Okay, same last name?

Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay what's her actual birth date?

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

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

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

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

Note that this phrase is repeated in the video. 

Dispatcher: Okay. Is mom there also?

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


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

a. Element of the sentence is time. The sense of time is very important to him.  Notice the two uses of “just”, which compares timing. 
b. She did not go to work. She “left.”
c. She did not go to work: she “just left
d. She did not go to work: she “had justleft”
e. Departure of “mom” is very important to him; enough to reference it three times.  The word “just” is a dependent word, indicating that he is comparing timing with another timing. We often find this is actual delays. See the concerns with timing and processing above. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please see the video. 

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

This is an indicator of missing information.

Would this missing information be about traffic-rushing in context with a missing child? (70%)
Or, is this critically withheld information? (30%)

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

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

Was this call to the mother made before calling 911?

Is this a time line management? 

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

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

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

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

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

Dispatcher: Okay, mother.

Sergio: But she was…

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

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

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


Sergio: Uh, in our Lexus RX300, and it's red.
Dispatcher: Okay.

Sergio: And she's coming from TMC, so she should just be coming straight down Craycroft.

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

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

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

This is Ingratiation: to show how “helpful” one is. 
Also note the tangent of moving the topic from the victim (who gets few words to this point) to something unrelated which produced more words. 

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

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

Dispatcher: Okay. How tall is she?
Sergio: She is five two.

Who is?

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

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

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

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

parroted response. 

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


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

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

He has not used the victim’s name to this point. 
“Clear eyes” produced a question of clarity for the dispatch. This is a normal question and it avoids interpretation. 

Dispatcher: And what do you mean by clear eyes? Like…
Sergio: Uh, well they're a little bit green…
Dispatcher: Are they hazel or?
Sergio:…green, green, hazel, sure.


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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Note the stutter is produced whendescribing her clothing. 

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

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

Question to Analysts:

Question:  Are you concerned about possible sexual abuse by the father?
Answer: Yes. (unnamimous) 

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

Dispatcher: Pink tank top? Okay. Navy blue shorts. Has she ever tried to sneak out of a window or anything?

Sergio: Oh no.
Dispatcher: Have you guys…
Sergio: Hu-uh
Dispatcher: …been having any weird phone calls, anything like that, somebody hanging around?


Sergio: No. We got home late from uh, my son's baseball game.

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

Time noted as element; “late” 
Dispatcher: Uh-hm

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

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

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

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

“who did not go to bed?” 

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

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

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


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

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

“Even” as “in addition to…”? 

Dispatcher: Uh-hm.

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

The subject is offering an alibi as being asleep. 

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

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


What did he hear that was not weird to him

Was she “gone” already? 

So I was like just on the…
Dispatcher: Okay.

Sergio:…other side of the wall from her.

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


Dispatcher: How, how many siblings does she have?
Sergio: Two.
Dispatcher: Okay, and those are brothers you said?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: How old are they?
Sergio: 14 and 10.



Dispatcher: And you said they're out looking or they were looking all over the house?

Note the element of time in his answer: 

Sergio: Oh no, they, they just, they just went right now, my oldest son, the 14 year old, he went running around just to make sure um, but I, she's nowhere

“just” compares two or more objects; here it is the element of timing that is so sensitive. 
Note the need to explain why his son went running around.  The dispatch or police would not have thought to ask, “why would you son run aroud to make sure…?” This is a very sensitive sentence and may be related to:
“notice” and “laying” of the “wide” window and the screen. It speaks to planting and orchestrating.,

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

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

The halting on pronouns is often an indicator of deception. 



Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…to be seen
Dispatcher: Outside or inside?


Sergio: He's outside our property wall.

Dispatcher: Okay. And where is the ten year old?

Sergio: He's in the garage. He's just out in the garage just waiting for…

Dispatcher: Okay.

Sergio:…my wife.

Dispatcher: Okay and what's mom's name?
Sergio: Becky.
Dispatcher: Okay. And what's your birth date sir?
Sergio: (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. And what's mom's?
Sergio: Uh, (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. Any you're both natural parents of the child?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay. So no, no step-parents, any, any problems with any grandparents?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. So you're not having any family issues, anything like that?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. And you haven't noticed anybody hanging out in front of your house?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. You're son that's 14, what's his name?
Sergio: (inaudible yelling in background) Uh, I'm sorry, my wife just walkedin and, and she's speaking to somebody. I don't know if she's speaking to the police also. She might have been calling on her way. You asked me about my son, what did you ask me?


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

Sergio: Yes. What about him?

Dispatcher: Um, well hang on a second. Okay, actually I think one of your sons is trying to call. Um, I'm sorry, what was your 14 year old's name?

Sergio: redacted

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

She “walked” in


Dispatcher: I, okay. Tell her we are on the way, we've got a…
Sergio: Okay.
Dispatcher:…bunch of officers on the way, I want you guys to stay there in the house.
Sergio: We will.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:Bye-bye


Analysis Conclusion:


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

A. Yes (Unanimous)

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


A. Yes. (Unanimous) 



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











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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video Observations by the teams:

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


Video focus upon self, their comfort level; not the victim's. 
No concern for the missing child expressed by either parent. 
No concern for what Isabel might be going through. 

Linguistic priority is not the victim, nor the abductor. 

No unprompted call to Isabel

No unprompted appeal to the abductor.  

No help asked
Ingratiation, emotional manipulation.  

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

Defensive 

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

They said they were “healing” while the victim is not found.  
He may even "sing", as if this is courageous. 

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

They have processed the info: have they accepted death?
Expectation of searching success unending (father) 

Fund raising

Abductor not addressed

“ransom” to “reward” re money. 

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

They said there was a limit to their cooperation w police 

Refused to issue denial. 

Refused to answer polygraph question noted. 

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

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

Conclusion: 

The video affirmed the analysis. 



A suspect has been indicted in her death.  

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

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

The arrested suspect has denied killing Isabel. 

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

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

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

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

209 comments:

1 – 200 of 209   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

As Christopher Clements led investigators to Isabel Celis remains, he said he didn't kill her. He blamed other criminals for that but he said he did pour bleach on her remains to repel animals.
More info on indicted suspect Clements
https://www.kgun9.com/news/local-news/phone-records-implicate-alleged-isabel-celis-killer

But police reports cite other evidence to explain how Isabel Celis may have attracted Clements' attention.

He made a business of buying, fixing and selling Honda and Acuras. Police say he went to the Celis house at least twice asking to buy an old Acura there.

Police say he made four short phone calls to a Celis family phone. And detective reports say Clements phone locked onto a cell tower near the Celis house the day Isabel disappeared and soon after locked onto a cell tower near the Avra Valley site where she was found many years later. The reports also say the day after Isabel Celis disappeared, Christopher Clements got a new phone and new phone number.

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

Sergio spoke much about Isabel's outer appearance. He described her clothing as little. As I was reading the 911 analysis, I was wondering why Sergio didn't say Isabel's name. Was he distancing? I also got the sense he was reading from a script. Was Isabel being sexually exploited? Did they make videos of her to sell to paedophiles? I get a feeling there's something much bigger behind this.

Good analysis.

Anonymous said...

Why was my previous comment on another thread deleted which stated that the suspect may know Sergio bc pedos network with each other deleted when Peter has stated that same thing in this blog post?

Laura said...

Peter,

Great analysis.
I noticed he used the word "wall" twice & it seems to be sensitive.
1) He was just on the ither side of Isabel's bedroom wall.

2) His son is just outside the property wall.

"Wall" is very important to him.
He didnt hear snything "weird", he says from the other side of the "wall".

I suspect Sergio may have allowed the suspect to abuse Isabel behind the wall, (in her bedroom) and he "listened" and heard nothing "weird". Sergio probably abused her too that night. One or both killed her & the suspect either got rid of her alone ir with Sergio's help.

Anonymous said...

It is weird too, how the Mom says Isabel showered and had her hair done before bed (for a baseball game the next AM?)
Something is off.

frommindtomatter said...

Dispatcher: Why do you think she was abducted?

I have no idea. We woke up this morning and went to go get her up for 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…,

OK hang on

“my sons are running around the house looking for her.”

It appears that when the caller was asked “Why do you think she was abducted?” he took it to mean why she would have been abducted, was there a motive for her abduction. He already has made the conclusion of abduction due to her window being open and the screen removed.

The next sentence begins with “We woke up this morning and went to go get her up”. The sentence after that states “I woke up my, my sons, I, we looked everywhere.”

This causes a problem, if we are meant to believe the “we” in the first sentence is referring to his sons then the two sentences are out of order. He should have told us he woke his sons and we discovered her gone for the order to be correct.

Also the first sentence describes we woke up and she`s gone which implies the “we” is who found her gone. The second sentence describes the sons looking for her; it doesn’t include them in finding her gone.

Was the mother the second person in the “we” of “We woke up this morning and went to go get her up”

Dispatcher: Okay. Is mom there also?

Uh, she had just left for work, I just called her and I told her to get her butt home. ("ha ha ha")

The use of the word “just” twice could be due to the events happening “within a brief preceding time.” So she had “recently” left for work and he had recently called her, they may be honest uses of language. They could also be sensitive to the caller.

If we believe the mother and father found her gone we see that according to the father the mother then leaves (left) for work. This would be unexpected with a child missing. We then have the disturbing part of the father saying he called her and told her to get home at which point he laughs. What occurs to me is that the mother has left and it is planned that the father will call her and tell her to return. This could be seen as a personal joke in the fathers mind hence him laughing at the idea of it. It would be silly in his mind, he told her to leave so we have sensitivity with “left” in the form of some sort of planning etc… Then the silliness of calling her back as it would not be genuine.

I haven’t had time to go through the entire transcript yet but at this point I am wondering why the mother had to leave and then be recalled. Where did she go before she returned? How long was it before the father called 911?

Shannon said...

I have seen it in middle school and high school student papers, essays and such. (personal experience essays,) I think it is possible that Sergio was speaking for himself and the boys, independently and as a family, possibly to convey that she really is gone and this call is not premature.

Peter Hyatt said...

Laura, analysts also spotted this.

The tricky part was trying to combine 3 teams notes into one.

There is much to add.

All analysts said they would not be surprised at DCF sex abuse concerns nor if the indicted suspect has a connection to the father.

Time will tell.

Mike Dammann said...

"We will not stop looking for you, Isabel".
He uses a similar statement as OJ Simpson did in terms of looking for the rest of his life for the real killers.
You would expect the goal being to FIND. Not look forever. It means that the father is stating that he does not expect any results from his search.

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

Good point

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

There are too many statement inconsistencies in the 911 call and video. I understand that people react to intense situations differently. However, I expected Isabel's parents to cry out for their child and plead to the abductor to bring her back home. Instead they behaved as if they knew she was already gone for good.

Mike Dammann said...

"We will not stop looking for you, Isabel" also indicates confidence that the body will not be found. That in itself indicates knowledge. While in OJ Simpson's case there were no real killers to be found, there was an actual body here.

George G. George said...

Were more areas of sensitivity found on the second analysis of 911 call?

M said...

-link with info on family member Justin Mastromariano and suspicions that he may be involved in Isa's death. He hired a defense attorney and moved away,, also shipped his vehicle from the area. He lived near the home, and had previously lived with the Celis family for a year.

https://truecrimedaily.com/2016/05/09/will-recently-discovered-video-help-find-missing-florida-girl-isabel-celis/

link where LE refers to dogs alerting on spots in the Celis home.

http://privateinvesigations.blogspot.com/2012/04/isabel-mercedes-celis-case-family-asked.html

Dr. Dugan said...

M- I had always hoped Mastromarino's words would be analyzed- there are some definite flags.

Also curious about Becky Celis's 911 call. When she refers to Isa's "little braids" should we flag her as a sexual deviant?

Alex said...

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

Isn't "she's gone" slipping into present tense? He goes from "we woke", which is past tense, to "she's gone", which is the contraction for she is, which is present tense.

Alex

frommindtomatter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Hyatt said...

This would not be linked to possible sexual abuse by the subject towards the mother.

Peter

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Peter Hyatt said...
This would not be linked to possible sexual abuse by the subject towards the mother.

....Peter could it be the mother knew and she allowed Isabel to sleep in her bed to protect her?

Dr. Dugan said...

This would not be linked to possible sexual abuse by the subject towards the mother.

Peter


That's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking if Sergio molests Becky. I'm asking, if we flag "little" in Sergio's language as a sexual flag as opposed to a linguistic or cultural choice, why is it then a linguistic choice in Becky's? Just because Sergio is a male? Does a sexual abuse indicator override the practice of not interpreting the meaning of a word for a subject? Same question with "noticed" and "I have no idea" which is interpreted as "I have literally zero idea" as opposed to a weak "I don't know" which is how many use it.

In an analysis of Becky's 911 call, who is the subject? Are we listening to her words and still focused on Sergio as the subject?

When we attribute flags to "the parents" in analysis do we need to see that flag in both parents, or if we see, for example, Sergio's lack of saying "Isa", but we see in the video that Becky uses Isa's name repeatedly, do we need to be careful to only attribute that flag to Sergio, and acknowledge the flag is different for Becky? If we see different levels of deception do we need to be careful to avoid combining them as a collective?I saw this distinction in Gough's analysis.

Another example, in the early days Mastromarino used the words "abducted by a stranger" to media, yet analysis claimed the parents said he was "abducted by a stranger." Can we attribute Mastromarino's words to the parents because media called him the "family spokesperson"? Or can we only attribute his words to his perception of reality?

Peter Hyatt said...

"Little" in the parents is seen as different because men and women are different, hence different language.

General, good point about mom wanting to protect.

The subject is the speaker.

Flags are different for the parents.

the question on Mastromarano -- I don't know. If he heard this from the parents, he could use their words. On his own, the unnecessary word "stranger" is alarming.


I am having trouble posting from iPhone update.

Peter

Anonymous said...

link to Info on how Clements may have met Isabel, and his documented calls to home in Nov, 2011, months before her disappearance. Clements restored Acuras, and he may have come to the door asking about buying mom's car.


https://www.12news.com/video/news/crime/isabel-celis-killer-may-have-met-her-months-before-her-murder-other-new-details-released/75-8266663

John mcgowan said...

OT:

This is what you need to know about those Cristiano Ronaldo rape allegations

"Probably the most important piece of evidence Mayorga and Der Spiegel have is an early version of a questionnaire that was answered by Ronaldo during the discussions. In September 2009, he states that “she said no and stop several times”. He says, “she said that she didn't want to, but she made herself available”, and, "but she kept saying 'No'. 'Don't do it'. 'I'm not like the others'”."


Read More:

https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/latest-news/2018/40/Cristiano-Ronaldo-rape-allegations-NDA-der-spiegel

frommindtomatter said...

I deleted my earlier comment. I listened to the audio again and I had made a mistake in my transcript. I thought I heard the name Michael mentioned and it wasn’t so my apologies. Here it is again below corrected. It now shows that the mother sent the child to bed, I previously thought it was someone else.

This shows the father didn’t move her and like her mother said she could have stayed in bed with her which would have prevented the incident from happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOnG7OoG39o

“What haunts me is more that I sent her to bed, she could have just stayed in bed with me. Like we’ve done it a thousand times you know, ev… you know shes slept in our bed a thousand times, and why that night that, I mean, and that night she you know erm, and I`m like ok let’s go to bed, but she could have easily stayed. That part is the part like, what if she would have just stayed, and she would have been right here and we wouldn’t have this and we wouldn’t have to be doing this.

MizzMarple said...

Good Afternon, Peter,

My apologies for the below off topic.

I hope you can analyze the below letter by Connie Chung to Christine B. Ford that was posted in the Washington Post this afternoon.

Thank you, Peter, and I look forward to your analysis - as well as any analysis from your astute posters.


I will have to put the letter in a separate post due to the number of letters.

Thank you.

MizzMarple said...

Part 1:


From the Washington Post:

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dear-christine-blasey-ford-i-too-was-sexually-assaulted--and-its-seared-into-my-memory-forever/2018/10/03/2449ed3c-c68a-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?utm_term=.8a783109cdb6


"Dear Christine Blasey Ford: I, too, was sexually assaulted — and it’s seared into my memory forever"

by Connie Chung
October 3 at 12:47 PM
Connie Chung is a broadcast journalist.

"Dear Christine Blasey Ford,

I, too, was sexually assaulted — not 36 years ago but about 50 years ago. I have kept my dirty little secret to myself. Silence for five decades. The molester was our trusted family doctor. What made this monster even more reprehensible was that he was the very doctor who delivered me on Aug. 20, 1946. I’m 72 now.

It was the 1960s. I was in college. The sexual revolution was in full swing. The exact date and year are fuzzy. But details of the event are vivid — forever seared in my memory.

Am I sure who did it? Oh yes, 100 percent.

I was a cool college coed but not that cool. I was still a virgin in the ’60s. I did advance to the so-called heavy petting stage, short of intercourse. I assumed that would come next.

I went to my family doctor to ask for birth-control pills, an IUD or a diaphragm.

His office was in his home, a classic Georgetown 19th-century house, creaky wooden floors with worn velvet Victorian furniture. His office was to the left of the front door, through double doors with glass windowpanes covered with tight curtains. It was a large room divided by a curtain he could draw. Half the room was his office, the other half his examination space.

Again, I cannot remember the exact date or even year. Yet I can still describe the following in detail. He drew the curtain, asking me to remove my clothes below the waist while he sat at his desk by the bay window. When I was ready, he came to the examination area and installed stirrups on one end of the cushioned examination table.

Here I was in my 20s and I had never had a gynecological examination. I had never even seen exam stirrups before. It was extremely odd to spread my legs and dig my heels into those cold iron stirrups.

While I stared at the ceiling, his right index finger massaged my clitoris. With his right middle finger inserted in my vagina, he moved both fingers rhythmically. He coached me verbally in a soft voice, “Just breathe. ‘Ah-ah,’ ” mimicking the sound of soft breathing. “You’re doing fine,” he assured me.

Suddenly, to my shock, I had an orgasm for the first time in my life. My body jerked several times. Then he leaned over, kissed me, a peck on my lips, and slipped behind the curtain to his office area.

I don’t remember saying anything to him. I could not even look at him. I quickly dressed and drove home.

At the time, I think I may have told one of my sisters. I certainly did not tell my parents. I did not report him to authorities. It never crossed my mind to protect other women. Please understand, I was actually embarrassed about my sexual naivete.
I was in my 20s and knew nothing about sex. All I wanted to do was bury the incident in my mind and protect my family.

MizzMarple said...

Part 2:


From the Washington Post:

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dear-christine-blasey-ford-i-too-was-sexually-assaulted--and-its-seared-into-my-memory-forever/2018/10/03/2449ed3c-c68a-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?utm_term=.8a783109cdb6


"Dear Christine Blasey Ford: I, too, was sexually assaulted — and it’s seared into my memory forever"

by Connie Chung
October 3 at 12:47 PM
Connie Chung is a broadcast journalist.



My mother could not read or write English, let alone drive. From then on, I told her our family doctor lives too far away. We’re not going to see him anymore.

Years later, I told my husband. When did I tell him? What year? What date? I don’t remember.

When the superb reporting of the New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and the New York Times’s Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor helped touch off this intimate discussion, my dirty little secret reared its ugly head and I told anyone who would listen.

I think the doctor died almost 30 years ago in his 80s. I’ve driven past his home/office many times but refused to look at it. Just yesterday, I found the house on Google Maps. Seeing it again, I freaked out.

Christine, I, too, am terrified as I reveal this publicly. I can’t sleep. I can’t eat. Can you? If you can’t, I understand. I am frightened, I am scared, I can’t even cry.

Will my legacy as a television journalist for 30-plus years be relegated to a footnote? Will “She Too” be etched on my tombstone instead? I don’t want to tell the truth. I must tell the truth. As a reporter, the truth has ruled my life, my thinking. It’s what I searched for on a daily working basis.

Christine, I know the truth, as you do. Years ago, my husband read a novel by Rita Mae Brown called “Six of One.” He told me, “There’s a great line in this book. ‘The advantage of telling the truth is you don’t have to remember what you said.’ ”

I wish I could forget this truthful event, but I cannot because it is the truth. I am writing to you because I know that exact dates, exact years are insignificant. We remember exactly what happened to us and who did it to us. We remember the truth forever.

Bravo, Christine, for telling the truth."

Habundia Awareness said...

"If we believe the mother and father found her gone we see that according to the father the mother then leaves (left) for work. This would be unexpected with a child missing"

I missed this way of 'looking' at it. Thanks!
It raises the question.....are there any statements of the mother alone? Or do we only have their interviews?
It would be interesting to know what she had to say about after she went to bed and before she got to work.
What timeline does she has? What time she left the house? Was it normal for her to leave her home without saying goodbye to her kids?
From his words he told us the boys awoken after mom had left to work.

He didn't say "we went to go wake up the kids", it was Isabel who was to be waken......the other kids would only be woken after "they found Isabel was gone".

A neighbor had said in an interview that she had heard voices around 5/6 am, her dog was barking and so was the dog of the Celia family, she hadn't thought much of it. So she went back to sleep. It was only after some time she thought she should have looked, because it wasn't normal for people to be at that spot, because the path leading to the window (the one found open) and to the neighbors front door was only used by the neighbor herself, nobody else normally used it.

"we will not stop looking for you"

Didn't the Ramsey's and the Mccans said this too?
I think Gerry even said it in his last interview if I am remembering it correct.


Could there be some financial problem and 'they had to pay some debt'?
At some point the interviewer asked them about the "talk about ransom money"
He turns it into "reward money", and sort of explains why the public had "misunderstood".
The donation is made "anonymously" and would be "reward money", not for ransom.
When rewards are given usually it comes with a clear digit of the amount that could be warned for the tip that solves the case. Here it's unknown how much that "reward money" is.

"Follow the money" isn't that what they often say?

General P. Malaise said...


Blogger MizzMarple said...


after a quick read, there is a lot of sensitivity and passive language. on form it is not reliable as the event takes about 10% of the dialogue. 40% pre and 50% post event. normally a reliable statement is 25% pre...50 % event and 25% post.

moralizing doesn't help the reliability nor releasing it if it is a letter to one person. it is shown to be addressed to one person and not an open letter to the editor. it seems like a stunt to make a political point to counter the case of the imploding Dr. Ford allegations.



Foolsfeedonfolly said...

I disagree with Connie Chung's premise "I am writing to you because I know that exact dates, exact years are insignificant." I know where was I was, how old I was, and minute details of every traumatic event in my life (and there have been 10). I remember the places, the names of the people involved. There are people just like me, who remember significant details. There are also those who remember and actively work to suppress or bury the details trying to survive the thing, but memory precedes suppression.

If Dr. Ford's account is genuine, I would think Dr. Ford would have had triggering episodes with flashbacks throughout her adult life if this event was as traumatic as she's suggesting. I say suggesting because she has not and seems unable to verbally commit to "Brett Kavanaugh pushed me into a bedroom at a party, pushed me onto a bed, tried to take my clothes off, and grinded/groped me."

In her letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Dr. Ford states, "They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state.". Her handwritten account for the polygrapher is missing that key detail. Why? Did she forget that these guys who: trapped her in a bedroom and laughed together as one pinned her down, held his hand over her mouth, tried to take her clothes off, were very drunk? Would you? Notice both of her accounts lack sensory detail at this point. A drunk guy pinning you down, with his hand over your mouth, trying to take your clothes off- I would expect your language to include smell-him reeking of alcohol. You, the victim, would not be able to miss or escape that, it would have been/should have been in your face. So, I would expect to hear how sick to your stomach you felt, in recounting this years later (especially after you had processed the trauma in detail in therapy). I would expect to hear emotion properly placed in this part of the story because of the passage of time and therapy. Actually, looking at both the letter to Feinstein and her handwritten account, they both lack emotional statements indicating processing-which is kind of weird given it was 35+ years ago, neither are a first telling (where the victim is still trying to process what's happened), and she's seen a therapist.


She also begins with "they" were both laughing, moves to the singular "Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me", and back to the plural with "their highly inebriated state". That's very awkward sentence structure for a highly educated woman, who's supposed to be working from experiential memory. It's as if she's either parachuting Kavanaugh into the story line at this point or tacking the drunken angle onto the end to make sure she gets it in. It feels cobbled together-which it shouldn't if she's working from experiential memory and particularly if she's already "walked through it" with a therapist (it's not a "first telling").

Shelley said...

Clips from an article and the comments after ****are my comments

Clements after he led them to Isabel's body told them he knew where the murder weapon was located and had surveillance video showing Isabel's father at a pawn shop on a media storage device, according to the search warrant.

"He implied that would help explain what had happened to Isabel," officials wrote in in the warrant.

****this is alarming and does show a possible tie to Sergio and if he is telling the truth, it sounds like Sergio bought the murder weapon. My mind here, since it sounds like she didn’t have bullet or knife wounds which would clear, is maybe asphyxiation via a devise? Maybe both were involved. He was clearly at the home a lot if he has photos. Maybe they killed her in the act and then he removed her body. But I would think at this point he would rat Sergio out to save himself unless he is way more involved.


Clements allegedly discussed details of Isabel's murder with the man in the third person, but he often slipped into first person, the inmate was quoted as saying in the search warrant.

****PETER DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS???

Clements also showed the man photos of Isabel's home, which he stored inside a Bible kept inside his jail cell. He lived just 2 miles away from the house at the time.

****how did he have photos of her home?

shelley said...

Clips from an article and the comments after ****are my comments

Clements after he led them to Isabel's body told them he knew where the murder weapon was located and had surveillance video showing Isabel's father at a pawn shop on a media storage device, according to the search warrant.

"He implied that would help explain what had happened to Isabel," officials wrote in in the warrant.

****this is alarming and does show a possible tie to Sergio and if he is telling the truth, it sounds like Sergio bought the murder weapon. My mind here, since it sounds like she didn’t have bullet or knife wounds which would clear, is maybe asphyxiation via a devise? Maybe both were involved. He was clearly at the home a lot if he has photos. Maybe they killed her in the act and then he removed her body. But I would think at this point he would rat Sergio out to save himself unless he is way more involved.


Clements allegedly discussed details of Isabel's murder with the man in the third person, but he often slipped into first person, the inmate was quoted as saying in the search warrant.

****PETER DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS???

Clements also showed the man photos of Isabel's home, which he stored inside a Bible kept inside his jail cell. He lived just 2 miles away from the house at the time.

****how did he have photos of her home?

Shelley said...

Clips from an article and the comments after ****are my comments

Clements after he led them to Isabel's body told them he knew where the murder weapon was located and had surveillance video showing Isabel's father at a pawn shop on a media storage device, according to the search warrant.

"He implied that would help explain what had happened to Isabel," officials wrote in in the warrant.

****this is alarming and does show a possible tie to Sergio and if he is telling the truth, it sounds like Sergio bought the murder weapon. My mind here, since it sounds like she didn’t have bullet or knife wounds which would clear, is maybe asphyxiation via a devise? Maybe both were involved. He was clearly at the home a lot if he has photos. Maybe they killed her in the act and then he removed her body. But I would think at this point he would rat Sergio out to save himself unless he is way more involved.


Clements allegedly discussed details of Isabel's murder with the man in the third person, but he often slipped into first person, the inmate was quoted as saying in the search warrant.

****PETER DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS???

Clements also showed the man photos of Isabel's home, which he stored inside a Bible kept inside his jail cell. He lived just 2 miles away from the house at the time.

****how did he have photos of her home?

John mcgowan said...

TIMELINE | Kristin Westra's husband recounts night his wife disappeared

Following the disappearance of his wife, Jay Westra spoke with NBC News about what he recalls from that night at the couple's North Yarmouth home.

► Sunday morning | Kristin sees licensed clinical practitioner about anxiety symptoms
"Sunday morning Kristin was experiencing what I would call some anxiety and she expressed that she had some sleepless nights and was worried and I helped her develop a plan. We have a [sic] I know somebody who is a licensed clinical nurse practitioner, and she graciously got us an appointment at 3 o'clock on Sunday."

► Sunday, 3 p.m. | Kristin schedules blood work, develops plan to re-focus exercise, diet
"Kristin met with [the nurse pracitioner] while my daughter and I were in the room next to her playing cards. After that, they left and it was [sic] there was a safety assessment and Kristin was not at risk for any harm to herself or anybody else. We had a plan that she was going to get some blood lab work done the next day, continue focusing on her yoga and running that — because of a lot of activities and start of school and construction — she had been not doing as much of, and then changing a little bit in her diet, working on her sleep patterns, and just some basic things that were a good plan. She made plans with a nurse practitioner, her sister-in-law, to have the labs drawn on Monday."

► Sunday evening | Kristin goes for run, eats 'well' during dinner, prepares for bed
"We came home after that and she made me a grocery list and I went with my daughter to buy groceries. She went for her run on Sunday and that was caught on a neighbor's camera, and so they saw her running. After that, we came home, we had a really good dinner, she ate well, showered and put my daughter to bed."

► Sunday bedtime | Kristin and Jay read together; she tells him she feels better
"We decided that we weren't going to watch TV — we don't watch TV in our room — but since our renovations the TV's just there, so we have slipped into doing that, so we said no, we're going to read books and go to sleep. She told me she felt better, we had a plan, and Kristin is a person who when she has a plan she sticks to the plan and she follows through and she does things well, every time."

► Monday, 3:30 a.m. | Kristin experiences 'restlessness'; Jay awakes to find her not in bed
"In the middle of the night, I could tell she felt restless, and I think she was trying not to wake me because I work the next day. And after that restlessness, at 3:30 [a.m.], I looked at the phone because she wasn't in bed, and I just thought, she's an extremely considerate person and thoughtful; and I thought, maybe she had gone to another room to another bed to sleep, or I thought she had gone downstairs to write her thoughts like she was asked to if she had racing thoughts."

Cont

John mcgowan said...

► Monday, 6:20 a.m. | Jay realizes Kristin is no longer home, begins to worry
"At 6:20 [a.m.], I woke up as sort of our usual schedule. My daughter was up, she was getting herself ready for school. I showered. Didn't want to wake Kristin because I thought possibly she was asleep in the next room. And then after my shower, I walked by it, did not see her, panicked slightly about that, checked on my daughter and then went to the garage where we have a small kitchen setup while we're doing renovations. She wasn't there. I started to really worry. My daughter's very independent for a 10-year-old and she kept doing her normal morning routine."

► Monday morning | Jay searches his house, finds most of Kristin's belongings left behind
"I pretended to go out and walk the dogs so I could look a little bit. It was rainy, cold. I couldn't see where she would be. Her keys were here. Her purse was here. Her phone was here. Her car was here. Then, when I came back in — my daughter's routine is to practice her piano in the morning and she was doing that, and that gave me time to call a good friend over. He came over to take my daughter to school, and that was awesome and comfortable because they often [sic] we go to their house so she can go to the bus stop with those children."

► Monday morning | Jay searches neighborhood, personally asks law enforcement for help
"After that, I started to walk in a few places that I could think of. I got in my car and drove to a few places that I could think of, places where she would go for a run in the neighborhood. And after that, I stopped and I went [sic] in the center of town there's a small park, and I stopped and I asked a sheriff to help us. And after the sheriff started helping us he followed me back."

► Monday afternoon | Deputies, troopers and wardens conduct searches till dawn
"The sheriff's office has been working hard since then and they are still working hard. The state police interviewed me and they are still working hard. And not too long after that, in the afternoon, the Maine Warden Service started getting involved. They started doing an organized wood search with dogs and flashlights and grid work. And at a certain point in time, it was too late and too wet and too dark to continue, and they started everything back up at 6 a.m. [Tuesday] morning."

Jay told NBC News he's losing track of the days and the time. He said people have been working hard and that "the state and the wardens and the sheriffs have all been very kind and concerned."

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/i-dont-care-what-people-think-missing-north-yarmouth-womans-husband-speaks-to-nbc-news/97-600451281

Anonymous said...

Kristin Westra’s husband, 15 minute interview
https://www.wcsh6.com/video/news/local/freeport/maine-missing-womans-husband-speaks-to-nbc/97-8270690

Anonymous said...

Kristin Westra’s husband, 24 minute interview
https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/i-dont-care-what-people-think-missing-north-yarmouth-womans-husband-speaks-to-nbc-news/97-600451281

tania cadogan said...

Oh dear, yhis HD me tutting loudly in a hospital waiting room. His language is concerning especially from 3:30am

Anonymous said...

Some thoughts on the Westra timeline provided by John mcgowan (I didn’t watch the interviews yet):

- In the first 4 timeline items Jay mentions the word “plan” 12 (!) times: a plan was developed and made. The plan involved blood work. The plan involved anxiety. The plan was stuck to and followed through.

- In the 3rd timeline item, Jay says:
"She went for her run on Sunday and that was caught on a neighbor's camera, and so they saw her running. After that, we came home, we had a really good dinner, she ate well, showered and put my daughter to bed. "
Why does Jay emphasize that the neighbor’s camera caught Kristin running? Why would that be at all relevant to Jay if Kristin had dinner with him and his daughter AFTER that run? Does he need others to corroborate his story? Doesn’t he think his account is credible enough on its own? Does he see himself as a suspect?
Also, in this item, Jay mentions that Kristin “ate well”. Why does he emphasize this (along with her dietary changes in the 2nd timeline item)? Why was this an important detail to Jay? What did she eat? Was something in her food/drink?

- In the 5th timeline item, Jay says:
"In the middle of the night, I could tell she felt restless, and I think she was trying not to wake me because I work the next day. And after that restlessness, at 3:30 [a.m.], I looked at the phone because she wasn't in bed (…)"
I just find it strange how this is worded, especially the words “And after that restlessness (…)”. Information is missing. What happened between (I) Jay feeling Kristin was restless and (II) 3.30[a.m.]? If something bad happened to Kristin, it may have happened within this time frame: she was restless, she “was (…) not wake” or “trying (…) to wake [up]” and at some point that restlessness was over. After the restlessness she was no longer in bed. Jay does not say: she got out of bed. How did she leave the bed?
Also, the words “thought(s)” and “thoughtful” seem important in the 5th timeline item. Jay mentions them 6 times in 1 sentence. I think his OWN thoughts may have been racing at this point instead of Kristin’s.

- In the 6th timeline item, Jay says:
"At 6:20 [a.m.], I woke up as sort of our usual schedule."
Does Jay mentioning that he woke up as per the USUAL schedule mean that the rest of the circumstances were ANYTHING BUT usual that morning?

- In the 6th timeline item, Jay says:
"I showered. Didn't want to wake Kristin because I thought possibly she was asleep in the next room. And then after my shower, I walked by it, did not see her, panicked slightly about that, checked on my daughter and then went to the garage where we have a small kitchen setup while we're doing renovations. She wasn't there. I started to really worry. "
Jay wants us to believe he panicked slightly just because he did not see her in the next room. Panic seems too strong an emotion here (despite his wife experiencing some health problems). And why does he really worry when he doesn’t see her in the kitchen? Couldn’t she have simply been in another room? Or fetching a newspaper or something?

- In the 7th timeline item, Jay says:
"I pretended to go out and walk the dogs so I could look a little bit. It was rainy, cold. I couldn't see where she would be.”
The word “pretended” is unnecessary in this sentence. Jay did not pretend to go out and walk the dogs. At least, I assume he ACTUALLY went out and took the dogs with him. So why does he use the word “pretended” here? Is it because he pretended to his daughter that everything was normal whereas he already knew that something was wrong with Kristin?

- In the 9th timeline item: does Jay try to ingratiate himself to the sheriff and the state police?

Autumn


LisaB said...

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

I have seen this question raised several times...

I have wondered from the beginning if some of the red flags were just communication issues. If Sergio was answering a different question than that asked.

For instance, the operator meant "What makes you believe she was abducted?" but Sergio heard "For what reason would somenone abduct her?"

Anonymous said...

Shelley, that is a bombshell, I would think.
Thanks for posting, here is link.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/09/24/records-christopher-clements-indicted-killing-2-tucson-girls-may-have-other-victims/1404485002/

Anonymous said...

Clements could have taken pictures of outside of home, report does not say inside.

But the statement about Sergio on film at a pawn shop. :(

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

"At 6:20 [a.m.], I woke up as sort of our usual schedule.

It was a day like any other...

frommindtomatter said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOnG7OoG39o

If you watch the clip at the 4min 10s mark the father in response to the question “And for whoever has her, what message do you have for that person?” says

“If you know where she’s at, be her guardian angel, help her.”

As he starts that sentence he closes his eyes and keeps them shut all through the words “If you know where she’s at”

In body language closing the eyes represents not wanting to see something. He also shrugs his shoulders. Single shoulder shrugs are signs of deception; he shrugs his left first with his right following a second later.

It`s possible he does know where she’s at (she was still missing at time of video) and closed his eyes as he did not want to see the location.

Question for Peter if you get chance, is there any significance apart from emphasis when someone repeats the same word multiple times in a row? From the above video I noted the father doing this 3 times. The occurrences are listed below.

“being ready,ready,ready for her to be here”

Wanting to shake your fist and constantly be saying why and why and why”

We kept looking everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, everywhere”

I found it interesting he repeated “everywhere” 4 times opposed to his other uses which were 3 repetitions.I wonder if this is some habit of speech his.

John mcgowan said...

Re missing, Kristin

Earlier i read another article from her husband. (I'm on my phone at the moment) i will find the link when i access my LT.

His language is all about his wife. He doesn't go on about what he he is going through. However, he dies say how much family, friends and collegues love her, yet doesn't include himself.

A small detail i agree.

My initial instinct is, no involvement, (nefarious)


John mcgowan said...

*dus

John mcgowan said...

Omg, my phone is not playing out^^

You get what i mean, hopefully

Anonymous said...

Re missing Kristin:

John, I think you meant "does", right? :-)

I agree that he says some "good" things, also. E.g. that he doesn't care about his situation or what other people think or gossip, just the return of Kristin to him and her family. Everything else is secondary. And, for instance: "We're a team, we will be a team."

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think he planned it from A to Z. I have a feeling that him helping her develop a "health" plan (having her go to a clinical nurse practitioner, blood work, diet, etc) may have been part of HIS plan. This way, he could easily blame her disappearance on her emotional and physical health issues (he certainly emphasizes those right at the beginning of the interview). He was building a narrative, a motive for her disappearance. I know it's a horrible thing to say, I hope I'm wrong.

Autumn

George G. George said...

I work in a behavioral health center and we're getting many patients that are being triggered by all the recent news of sexual assault. Some are immediatley aware of their triggers, while others come to realize as they examine their thoughts and behaviors.

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

"In the middle of the night, I could tell she felt restless, and I think she was trying not to wake me because I work the next day."

In the middle of the night...
She felt restless.
Was she restless in his arms?
How did he "feel" her restlessness?
Sensitive words - "think" "trying" "not" "because"

"And after that restlessness, at 3:30 [a.m.], I looked at the phone because she wasn't in bed (…)"

Sentences beginning with "And" indicate missing information between the sentences.
"After" What happened during the restlessness? Something is missing.
"Phone" indicates connection and often link suspects to a crime scene.
A second "because", enclosing "phone" and the temporal lacunae of "And after that" is the cluster of blue.

UNLESS THE STATEMENT IS CONTAMINATED, the missing information inside the cluster of blue is often the solving of a casE.


Anonymous said...

Was she trying to leave him?

frommindtomatter said...

► Monday, 3:30 a.m. | Kristin experiences 'restlessness'; Jay awakes to find her not in bed

"In the middle of the night, I could tell she felt restless, and I think she was trying not to wake me because I ^ work the next day. And after that restlessness, at 3:30 [a.m.], I looked at the phone because she wasn't in bed, and I just thought, she's an extremely considerate person and thoughtful; and I thought, maybe she had gone to another room to another bed to sleep, or I thought she had gone downstairs to write her thoughts like she was asked to if she had racing thoughts."

I think he is telling us what happened literally.

He had work the next day. She was restless. She was “not trying to wake him up” given in the negative. He tells us he was aware of this so we know he was awake. She had probably been moving around being restless in the bed. This had woken him up. He laid there trying to get back to sleep but all the time getting more wound up because he could not get to sleep and he had work the next day.

“because I work the next day” – This is not right it should be “had work” or “have work”, there is something sensitive to him about this.

”And after that restlessness”

Autumn commented on this and it bothers me too. We have “after” which is time sensitive and the use of the word “that” which adds distance to the event. Something happened between her being restless and “after”,

“at 3:30 [a.m.], I looked at the phone because she wasn't in bed”

He tells us literally and reliably that she wasn’t in bed when he looked at the phone at 3:30. We must presume she had been moved somewhere.

I just thought, she's an extremely considerate person and thoughtful;

Now he starts to shower praise on his wife telling us what a wonderful person she was. Do you think this is him being sarcastic? Was she considerate and thoughtful by waking him up when he had work the next day? He also thought she might have gone downstairs to write her thoughts down as she was “asked.” I don’t believe she did, I think she stayed in bed and kept him awake until he snapped.

The rest of the paragraph he dedicates to what he thought might have happened. He uses the word “thought” or “thoughtful” 6 times in the last couple of sentences.

I haven’t looked at the rest of the transcript yet. From what I see here he is telling us literally what happened.

frommindtomatter said...

"And after that restlessness, at 3:30 [a.m.], I looked at the phone because she wasn't in bed"

I should have added that if she was dead she technically would not be in bed. Her body may have been there but she would not be. Also my wife just pointed out we must consider the time [3:30] could be the liars use of the number 3. Either way she was not in bed from being moved or from not being alive.

Buckley said...

The blood work hasn’t been done yet, right? It was scheduled for the day she disappeared.

Bobcat said...

"After that, we came home, we had a really good dinner, she ate well, showered and put my daughter to bed."


Isn't that daughter also her daughter? "Our" daughter? He refers to their room as "our" room, but the daughter as "my".

Unless he knows she is dead (at the time of the interview), and she is now only "his" daughter.

Buckley said...

I think we’ve been told the opposite, to flag “we” or “our”

In the recent Celis analysis, Peter wrote:

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.

frommindtomatter said...

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/i-dont-care-what-people-think-missing-north-yarmouth-womans-husband-speaks-to-nbc-news/97-600451281

Second vid down is the 24 minute one. He mentions at the 10 min mark the children.

Interviewer: "Can you tell me how difficult this has been for you and for your children?"

Jay Westra: "This is the hardest thing I’ve had to do in my life. Kristin is the love of my life, she’s perfect for me. This is hard for communities, this is hard for her daughter, her stepson and… this is hard for everybody who’s ever known her…, and will ever know her."

He says (what it sounds like to me) “her daughter, her stepson”.

I find it interesting the order he gives – communities, her daughter, stepson. He puts communities in front of the children.

Then he says it`s “hard for everybody who’s ever known her…, and will ever know her.”

Saying “and will ever know her” is pretty strange. In the video he looks worried when he said it, I think he was worried about the tense of saying “known” and then adds “will ever know her” to cover his bases.

Every word he says is very slow and mechanical like he is carefully checking each word/ sentence before he gives it.

One of the last questions of the interview:

Interviewer: "I`ll ask you this just because I have to ask you this. Did you have anything to do with your wifes disappearance?"

Jay Westra: "I think I’ve answered all that umm, I don’t think anything in this discussion had, would have a different answer to that question."

He avoids answering the direct question and instead of telling us what he thinks he moves to the negative with “I don’t think.”

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

Some additional thoughts on the Westra case:

In the 4th timeline item, Jay says:
"We decided that we weren't going to watch TV — we don't watch TV in our room — but since our renovations the TV's just there, so we have slipped into doing that, so we said no, we're going to read books and go to sleep."
The words “slipped into (…) and go to sleep” caught my attention: is this a secret “tell” that something was slipped into a drink to “go to sleep”?

In the 5th timeline item, Jay says:
”(…) she wasn't in bed, and I just thought, she's an extremely considerate person and thoughtful; and I thought, maybe she had gone to another room to another bed to sleep, or I thought she had gone downstairs to write her thoughts like she was asked to if she had racing thoughts."
I agree with frommindtomatter that the words “extremely considerate person and thoughtful” stand out. Indeed, if you are trying to sleep because you have to work the next day and your partner is restless (and thus wakes you up or keeps you awake) and at some point leaves/has left the bed, do you take a moment to consider how extremely considerate and thoughtful your partner is, etc.? Or do you just turn around and try to get some sleep. Maybe Jay never thought of his wife as “extremely considerate” that night. “Considerate” also means “cautious” and “calculating” (although perhaps it is rarely used that way?), see www.thesaurus.com. Maybe it wasn’t Kristin but, instead, Jay who was extremely cautious while going “downstairs”? (With Kristin? So as not to wake up their daughter? )
Jay also says: “maybe she had gone to another room to another bed to sleep”. Why does he specifically ad “to another bed” here? It seems unnecessary. Did he suspect Kristin of sleeping in “another bed”?

In the 5th timeline item, Jay says:
"I pretended to go out and walk the dogs so I could look a little bit. It was rainy, cold. I couldn't see where she would be. Her keys were here. Her purse was here. Her phone was here. Her car was here. Then, when I came back in (…)”
Jay says he went out so he could “look a little bit” but couldn’t ”see where she would be”. Why doesn’t he simply say: I looked for her outside but she wasn’t there either. What exactly did he look at “a little bit”?
Then he goes on to summarize a list of Kristin’s items that “were here”. He repeats the words “her (…) were here”/“her (…) was here” 4 times. To me hat feels strange. Maybe because at that point in his story he was still “out” and surely her keys, purse and phone were not outside the house. Could he be subconsciously hammering home that Kristin was still (just) outside the house?

I at first assumed the daughter was Jay’s from a previous relationship since he consistently refers to her as ”my daughter” (8 x in the timeline). Bobcat and Buckley also commented on this. He never says “our daughter”. Her teen stepson (his son from a previous relationship?) – who, from what I read, also lives at the house – is never even mentioned. I understand that parenting is highly personal and that the use of “we” can be used to share/ease the guilt. But here it seems strange to me that he keeps saying “my daughter”. Perhaps because the very reason for this interview is Kristin and her disappearance. It feels like Kristin is pushed out of the picture as a mother. If something bad happened to Kristin, the daughter may be part of the motive (custody?).

I further noticed that Jay refers to his daughter’s routine/normal morning routine twice (see 6th timeline item). This could also imply – a contrario – that the rest of the morning was anything but routine.

Autumn

John mcgowan said...


Anonymous Bobcat said...
"After that, we came home, we had a really good dinner, she ate well, showered and put my daughter to bed."


Isn't that daughter also her daughter? "Our" daughter? He refers to their room as "our" room, but the daughter as "my".

Unless he knows she is dead (at the time of the interview), and she is now only "his" daughter.


hi

I think it's appropriate for him to use "my".

"our"

The overwhelming number of biological parents will say "my" child, taking ownership of the child. When someone "shares" ownership, such as "our" child, there is a reason.

a. Two parents together, speaking as one.
b. The parents are adoptive, or foster parents
c. There is a step parent involved (or someone acting in the role of step parent)
d. There is divorce in discussion between parents and they are already thinking/talking of sharing custody
e. When a child has bad behavior, or poor grades, there is sometimes a desire to avoid "my"
f. There is a need to share guilt.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/search?q=foster+parents

Using our"room", i think he is distinguishing his daughters room from theirs.

The water reference ("shower") maybe concerning

John mcgowan said...

“Investigators gather around mobile Crime Scene Unit on the Gary Road in N. Yarmouth as the search for a missing school teacher Kristin Westra. @WMTWTV”
Jim Keithley on Twitter

Anonymous said...

I remember Sergio’s verbiage to this day. I was utterly shocked when the other guy was arrested for her murder. I still think Sergio Celis is guilty somehow in his daughter’s murder. I hope the police have not ruled out his involvement. He is hinky to the max.

Buckley said...

Interviewer: "I`ll ask you this just because I have to ask you this. Did you have anything to do with your wifes disappearance?"

Jay Westra: "I think I’ve answered all that umm, I don’t think anything in this discussion had, would have a different answer to that question."


Yikes. I’m trying to recall a denial that bad...

Anonymous said...

Buckley, I agree. I think we have a murder suspect in Kristin’s husband.

Anonymous said...

John at 11:05,

Thank you for the info on "my" vs. "our" regarding children.

With Westra's small sample, I wasn't going to get hung up on that.

There is plenty more in his statement(s) that is concerning.

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

My pleasure, Bobcat

..

Re Kristin

It looks like her body has been found


Jay Westra (Husband) FB
1 hr ·
My heart was crushed today

Comments

Stephanie Macdonald I'm so sorry Jay, we love you...big hugs
Manage

Kate Wilber Heartbreaking...hugs to you all. Thinking of you all and sending love ♥️
Manage

Romy Saltzburg Weiss Devastating news. We are so sorry for you loss. Sending you love, strength, light and prayers.

https://www.facebook.com/jay.westra?__tn__=%2CdC-R-R&eid=ARDNqAbn5thwYAwEAYgv4mRqSDy7jQKe50NXVRm5y0PjmLzIMkQ3Gj1eKTfiFRCXsKw2sHcg0QK9PzpL&hc_ref=ARR24nWChBeY7_GVDJR_R7vSw_rYvBlEtV2S0UwmZcNlWxRF4rWy0kZ0r5pe6m9SOIY&fref=nf

Anonymous said...

Buckley said:

Yikes. I’m trying to recall a denial that bad...

The "denial" by Sergio Celis in the video (Raw Video Part I - 13:55 -14:30) seems equally bad:

Interviewer: What do you say directly to people who are assuming in some shape or form that you played a role in your daughters disappearance?

Sergio Celis Nothing. I mean I, I really don’t know what, what to answer to that because other than ”you’re wrong” and, eh, and I can’t say too much, again, I’m afraid of saying anything, eh, as far as the investigative but, eh, point-blank, I guess that’s the, the best answer I can come up with and, eh, and I, to defend that is just riding this out, is riding it out.

At first we get a flat out refusal to answer the question ("Nothing"). Then he says he doesn't know what to answer. The following words, "you're wrong", come closest to a denial (albeit nowhere near a reliable denial). However, it’s worth watching this part in slow motion. He grins almost incredulously immediately before and after saying these words. I think these words may also be a subconscious slip that his previous sentence was wrong (he knows EXACTLY how to answer that question). He goes on to tell us that he can't say too much because he is afraid of saying anything. This part is probably truthful: if he would say too much he would give away too much and he is afraid to do so. He then explains that he cannot say too much because he is afraid to give away details of the investigation. This is not convincing at all because answering the question by no means required him to give details about the investigation. The subsequent words - “point-blank” - may be a detail of the crime. Notice also how he emphasizes these two words and nods very clearly while saying them (whereas he shakes his head in other parts of this particular statement). He “guesses” that that’s the “best answer” he can “come up with”. It’s not THE answer, but THE BEST answer. He doesn’t GIVE an answer, he COMES UP with one. The repeated “riding it out” may also be a detail of the crime (e.g. they rode her out to the desert). The interview is difficult to watch. His body language, the constant clutching to his wife’s arms, the pitiful look on his face. It’s an act... (all just my opinion of course)

Autumn

Anonymous said...

What if Sergio is covering for something his 14 year old son did to Isabel?

How would that affect the language?

What about the Ramseys covering for their son Burke (and themselves after the fact)?

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

"We came home after that and she made me a grocery list and I went with my daughter to buy groceries. She went for her run on Sunday and that was caught on a neighbor's camera, and so they saw her running. After that, we came home, we had a really good dinner, she ate well, showered and put my daughter to bed."
-----------------
"The only thing that was unusual was the garage door. The back entrance was slightly open, about 3 inches, and truthfully, that’s something that the latch catches every once in while and the door doesn't go all the way shut. So that may be a way she left the building. Our front door is noisier, and she may have left the back door, not trying to wake anyone up.

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/i-dont-care-what-people-think-missing-north-yarmouth-womans-husband-speaks-to-nbc-news/97-600451281

"we came home" and " she left the building"

frommindtomatter said...

Monday, 6:20 a.m. | Jay realizes Kristin is no longer home, begins to worry
"At 6:20 [a.m.], I woke up as sort of our usual schedule. My daughter was up, she was getting herself ready for school. I showered. Didn't want to wake Kristin because I thought possibly she was asleep in the next room. And then after my shower, I walked by it, did not see her, panicked slightly about that, checked on my daughter and then went to the garage where we have a small kitchen setup while we're doing renovations. She wasn't there. I started to really worry. My daughter's very independent for a 10-year-old and she kept doing her normal morning routine."

“Didn't want to wake Kristin because I thought possibly she was asleep in the next room.”

No pronoun “I” to start the sentence and also he starts it with the negative “didn’t”. He could of said I thought I would let Kristin sleep. He uses “because” to explain why he didn’t want to wake her and gives the reason that she was possibly in the next room. He doesn’t give the reason that she might be tired etc…

“I walked by it, did not see her, panicked slightly about that, checked on my daughter and then went to the”

The pronoun “I” is only used once in this sentence. He lists the actions off like a checklist but does not make any personal commitment to them by using “I”.

He makes no personal commitment to what he is saying so why should we believe what he is telling us?

I want to thank John for posting the timeline there’s a lot of stuff to analyse in it.

Buckley said...

John McGowan said...
However, he dies

:-0

frommindtomatter said...

John mcgowan

Re Kristin

It looks like her body has been found

Jay Westra (Husband) FB

“My heart was crushed today”

Interesting he used the word “crushed.” I feel she may have been crushed in an attempt to stop her from being restless and moving around in the bed with possibly a pillow over her face. If this has been a condition (restlessness) she had suffered from for some time the husband may have had many nights of broken sleep. We will have to see what the autopsy reveals.

John mcgowan said...

Buckley said...
John McGowan said...
However, he dies

:-0

typo, lol

Buckley said...

I know, I’m just messin’ with ya.

Anonymous said...

Upon reviewing the video and transcript:

"After that, we came home, we had a really good dinner, she ate well, um (X) showered and put my daughter to bed."

The assumption above might be that Jay is saying Kristin showered and put their daughter to bed. However, there is a pause in his speaking. It could be transcribed as:

"After that, we came home, we had a really good dinner, she ate well. Um (X) showered and put my daughter to bed."

In which case, we have a dropped pronoun before "shower". And rambling about watching TV (i.e. Amanda Blackburn laughing at dumb finds on instagram, Hailey Dunn).




Anonymous said...

Bobcat said:
What if Sergio is covering for something his 14 year old son did to Isabel?

How would that affect the language?

What about the Ramseys covering for their son Burke (and themselves after the fact)?


Bobcat, in that case I think Sergio would probably leak some details about that in his statements. I haven't looked closely at this case and hadn't thought of that possibility. One thing I wonder about is the mother's role. From what I understand, Peter concluded that Sergio’s statements indicate sexual abuse of Isabel and that Becky (Isabel’s mother) likely knew about it. From Becky’s body language and facial expression – especially at the beginning of Sergio's “denial” (see the Raw Video Part I: 14.00 – 14:06) – and certain statements, I also got the feeling she knows what happened to Isabel. However, Becky doesn’t seem the type that would condone sexual abuse/exploitation of her daughter(?) If Isabel’s brother was responsible for the murder, that might explain why the mother still stands by her husband (at least at the time of the interview).

But there may be another explanation why Becky stands by Sergio. It’s interesting that you compare this case to the JonBenet Ramsey case. I think these cases may be (even) more similar than they seem at first glance. I don’t believe Burke Ramsey killed his sister although the little boy had some serious behavioral problems. One of the parents (probably Patsy) killed JonBenet and both covered it up. Patsy wrote the ransom letter. JonBenet was sexually abused right before her murder (this may be a similarity with the Isabel Celis case). Although this may have been part of the staging of the crime scene, there were indications that the abuse of JonBenet had been going on for a longer time (another possible similarity with the Celis case). I just did some research on this blog: Peter concluded that JonBenet was likely sexually abused, that John Ramsey’s language contains references associated with sexual abuse and that Patsy likely knew about the abuse (also possible similarities with the Celis case: the father likely abused Isabel and the mother likely knew about it). There’s a book I still want to read about this case: A mother gone bad by Andrew G. Hodges. I believe Hodges also concludes that John Ramsey abused JonBenet and that Patsy knew about the abuse. According to his analysis, Patsy killed JonBenet because (i.a.) she caught John molesting JonBenet. This is why Patsy never turned on John. They were in it together. I wonder if something similar may have happened in the Isabel Celis case. If Isabel’s mother was responsible for Isabel’s death (e.g. killing her in a fit of rage over the abuse), that would explain why she looks guilty (i.m.o.) when asked about their involvement in Isabel's disappearance and why she still stands by her (allegedly) abusing husband. They’re in it together. It’s just a theory.

Autumn

Buckley said...

What if Sergio is covering for something his 14 year year old did...

What do you think of the 14-year-old’s language in his 911 call, especially the opening?

TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) - 911 call

Q - Tucson Police, Figueroa.

A – Hey, I need you guys to come down. My sister's gone uh, someone broke in and grabbed her. We're on 5602 East 12th Street. Hurry and that…

Q – Okay, what is your name?

A – (Redacted by Tucson News Now).

Q – Okay, we have a call in place. Officers are on their way already.

A – My dad, just people are looking.

Q – Uh, they're on their way, okay? How old are you (name redacted)?

A – Mm, 14 going on 15.

Q – Okay. Anything else that you know of, do you know what she's wearing?

A – She's probably wearing pajamas.

Q – Do you know what color?

A – Mm, maybe green, I don't know.

Q – I, can you ask what she was wearing?

A – Yeah, I can go ask my dad, I gotta…

Q – Okay. Stay with me on the phone and go ask him.

A – Alright. Can you take me down to…

A1 – (unidentified male) Yeah, yeah, yeah. Come with me.

A – Hold on, I gotta drive back to my house.

A – To get back to my house.

A – Someone's gonna give me a ride home.

Q – While you're going back to your house, does she have any uh, medical conditions?

A – No. She does not have any medical conditions, she's only six years old man.

Q – Okay. And did you guys hear anything?

Q – No? The screen is off the window?

A – It looks like it was taken off.

A – There a parking it. (ph)

Q - …what's your sister's name?

A – Isabel Mercedes Celis.

Q – Cely, Celis you said?

A – Hopefully not neighbors, she was … (inaudible).

A – Right there where you see the kid outside.

A – Yeah, just hold on.

Q – Okay. Who's the one that didn't find her, you or your dad?

A – They all, we're all going to find her. My mom just came home from work and my brother's outside and we're all outside look for her.

A – Alright, thank you sir.

A – Hey, what was Isa wearing last night? Yeah. She was wearing shorts, bask (ph)…she was wearing an Old Navy American flag shirt.

Q – And what, what's on 'em?

A – Just the American flag is on 'em and I think it's navy blue shorts.

A2 – (in background) She's my daughter she's not gonna leave.

Q – Anything else that she remembers she was wearing?

Q – Hello ma'am, are you the mom?

Anonymous said...

Okay. Who's the one that didn't find her, you or your dad?

A – They all, we're all going to find her. My mom just came home from work and my brother's outside and we're all outside look for her.


Son does not answer question here.
The dispatcher asks, who found her missing?

In answer, kid changes pronoun from they to we, and past to future, who will find her in future, perhaps to avoid pinning responsibility on one family member and spreading responsibility around?

He says they are all outside, looking for her.
Gives info not asked about.
Sounds like a plausible scenario.

Buckley said...

She asks “who didn’t find her?” not “who found her missing?” As he is at that moment looking for her he may well be thinking no one can find her. If the question was meant to be “who first noticed she was missing?” then it was ambiguously worded.

Buckley said...

I didn’t state part of that well. The question could be interpreted as “who discovered she was missing?” or “who is unable to find her?” The latter seems to be how he interpreted the question since he answers about the people trying to find her.

And with his “going to find her” it’s not necessarily future tense, going to = we will find her, but “going” with the emphasis on “go” as in go out and look for her, which is what he’s doing.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the transcript of the son's call!

frommindtomatter said...

Bobcat

"The only thing that was unusual was the garage door. The back entrance was slightly open, about 3 inches, and truthfully, that’s something that the latch catches every once in while and the door doesn't go all the way shut. So that may be a way she left the building. Our front door is noisier, and she may have left the back door, not trying to wake anyone up.

Good find Bobcat with “she left the building”.

Also he uses the word “truthfully” and says “3 inches” the liars favourite number in regards to the back door. All he had to say was the door was open but gives a detailed description which seems like overkill. It must be sensitive to him.

Anonymous said...

About Jay Westra’s and continued use of “my” daughter...

It’s because there’s likely something between he and his daughter which caused the problem with his wife, who loves children. Count the uses of door and light and shower. That’s what I thought, anyway. That’s why there was a relationship problem where “sometimes people get angry and need time to think”, and she had to go away....

Anonymous said...

About Jay Westra’s continued use of “my” daughter...

It’s because there’s likely something between he and his daughter which caused the problem with his wife, who loves children. Count the uses of door and light and shower. That’s what I thought, anyway. That’s why there was a relationship problem where he stated, “sometimes people get angry and need time to think”, and she had to go away....

Anonymous said...

OT: Alyssa Milano tweet:

"Don’t let this performance fool you. If @SenatorCollins believed in #MeToo she would have opened the door when I was in her office to hear stories of constituent survivors."

https://people.com/tv/alyssa-milano-details-sexual-assault-in-emotional-speech/

frommindtomatter said...

jay Westra

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/10/06/north-yarmouth-vigil-turns-to-memorial-service/

Vigil for missing North Yarmouth woman turns into memorial service.

There is only one quote in the article from Jay Westra:

“The moment I met Kristin on our first date, it was really simple to know that I planned to be with her forever,” Westra said.

The shortest sentence would have been – “the moment we met I knew I wanted to be with her forever”

He introduced the word “planned” into his language. “that I planned to be with.” I would have expected “wanted to be with.”

That his mind chose the word planned concerns me. When something is planned it means arrangements are made in advance. There is pre meditative thinking involved. He literally tells us that from the moment he met her "he" was making plans.

He doesn’t mention Kristins feelings in his statement and fails to incorporate the pronoun “we” into his language.

Why was Kristin suffering from anxiety and was that an official diagnosis? Is it coincidence she went missing the day before she was going to have blood tests?

Lars Bak said...

" If @SenatorCollins believed in #MeToo..."

Is #MeToo a religion... a god..? What does she mean - "believed in #MeToo"?

John mcgowan said...

Re Kristin Westra OT

Body found in North Yarmouth confirmed to be Kristin Westra

An autopsy confirmed the manner of death was suicide.

The body found by children playing the woods Friday in North Yarmouth has been identified as that of Kristin Westra, the teacher who was reported missing last week.

Capt. Craig Smith of the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement that an autopsy conducted Sunday morning by the state medical examiner’s office also determined that the death was a suicide.

Westra, 47, was last seen the night of Sept. 30 when she and her husband, Jay Westra, went to bed. She was gone when her husband woke up the next morning. Both her car and her cellphone were at home.

Law enforcement authorities and volunteers searched for her all week before the body was discovered Friday near Route 115 by two girls walking in the woods less than a mile from the Westra home.

A scheduled prayer vigil on Saturday night turned into an impromptu memorial for Westra, whom friends described as upbeat and positive.

Her husband said in an interview with NBC News that she had been experiencing anxiety and sleepless nights recently. The day before she disappeared Westra was assessed by a licensed clinical nurse practitioner and determined not to be at risk of harm to herself or others.

Smith said the search failed to find Westra’s body in part due to rainy and dark weather conditions when the effort was underway on Monday and Tuesday.

“At the time, the thought was more on a rescue, rather than recovery,” said Smith.

He said Westra’s body was discovered at the top of a ridge by the girls while searchers were looking for her from the bottom of the ridge. Smith said it is possible the searchers could not see her due to the vegetation in the area.

He said the searchers covered an ever-growing area, spiraling out as they went, and that the team had been planning to cover the area where she was found this weekend.

“Tragically she was found by the two girls who came upon her while walking through the woods,” Smith said.

A call to Westra’s brother, Eric Rohrbach, was not immediately returned Sunday.

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/10/07/body-found-in-north-yarmouth-confirmed-to-be-kristin-westra/

frommindtomatter said...

Death of Maine teacher who went missing ruled a suicide, authorities say
https://abcnews.go.com/US/death-maine-teacher-missing-ruled-suicide-authorities/story?id=58343239

Something has gone wrong this is no way a suicide.

Jay Westra:

This is hard for communities, this is hard for her daughter, her stepson and… this is hard for everybody who’s ever known her…, and will ever know her."

I posted this before but I wanted to focus on it more. He says:

“everybody who’s ever known her…, and will ever know her.”

He does not say for everybody who “knows” her but uses the past tense of “known.” He realises what he has said and tries to quickly correct himself by saying “and will ever know her” which makes his mistake stand out even more. How could it be hard on people who have yet to know her? They don’t know her.

Interviewer: If Kristin could here you what message would you want to send to her?

Westra: Kristin no matter what come home, umm… we’ve always taken care of everything we’ve solved every problem, were a team, we will be a team.

He shows again sensitivity to past tense language.

“were a team, we will be a team”

Were (sometimes used instead of was) and we`re (we are) can be confused with one another. In the video it sounds like he says “we`re a team” which would be fine but he is sensitive that it might have been confused for “were.” He then adds “we will be a team” so as correcting what he thought might have been a mistake.

Innocent people don’t worry about the words they speak. The above are two examples showing Westra once using past tense “known” and then correcting himself and then later correcting “were/we`re” as he was worried he may have said a past tense word.

It is very concerning this seems to have been ruled a suicide. I want to know the cause of death. She was meant to being having blood tests the next day which obviously never happened due to her going missing. There is so much wrong in his statements and interviews it is crazy. He literally tells us everything.

tania cadogan said...

frommindtomatter said...

jay Westra

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/10/06/north-yarmouth-vigil-turns-to-memorial-service/

Vigil for missing North Yarmouth woman turns into memorial service.

There is only one quote in the article from Jay Westra:

“The moment I met Kristin on our first date, it was really simple to know that I planned to be with her forever,” Westra said.

The shortest sentence would have been – “the moment we met I knew I wanted to be with her forever”

He introduced the word “planned” into his language. “that I planned to be with.” I would have expected “wanted to be with.”

That his mind chose the word planned concerns me. When something is planned it means arrangements are made in advance. There is pre meditative thinking involved. He literally tells us that from the moment he met her "he" was making plans.

He doesn’t mention Kristins feelings in his statement and fails to incorporate the pronoun “we” into his language.

Why was Kristin suffering from anxiety and was that an official diagnosis? Is it coincidence she went missing the day before she was going to have blood tests?


He also used plan several times in his statement.

Hanging or something else?
Hanging could almost be certainly suicide.

Anonymous said...

I think Kristin’s husband has been gaslighting her and medicating her to make her feel crazy. I really hope law enforcement up there is smart enough to join for unusual drugs in her system and needle marks on her body - he’s an oncology nurse with access to a lot of toxic drugs.

John mcgowan said...

Her husband said in an interview with NBC News that she had been experiencing anxiety and sleepless nights recently. The day before she disappeared Westra was assessed by a licensed clinical nurse practitioner and determined not to be at risk of harm to herself or others.


Although we don't know what the conclusion was by the licensed clinical nurse practitioner, that i'm aware of, his past tense language maybe influence by her state of mind leading up to her suicide.


Anonymous said...

Uh oh. Snarky alert

https://youtu.be/cFL6k5yOAFM

Anonymous said...

Snark Alert


https://youtu.be/cFL6k5yOAFM

John mcgowan said...

Her husband said in an interview with NBC News that she had been experiencing anxiety and sleepless nights recently. The day before she disappeared Westra was assessed by a licensed clinical nurse practitioner and determined not to be at risk of harm to herself or others.

Although we don't know the diagnosis of the assessment (and probably never will do under patient Dr confidentiality laws. His past tense language may have been influenced by her state of mind leading up to her taking her own life.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Snark Alert


https://youtu.be/cFL6k5yOAFM



She did a good job with common sense. Thank you

Peter

frommindtomatter said...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/death-maine-teacher-missing-ruled-suicide-authorities/story?id=58343239

The Cumberland County Medical Examiner ruled Kristin Westra's death a suicide, the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office announced Sunday. Her cause of death was not released.

I want to see a specific cause of death, suicide tells us nothing.

Even if she was found hung it wouldn’t be conclusive. What about Sheena Morris whose initial cause of death was suicide by hanging, it was later changed to undetermined.

Jay Westra made a long statement. He never mentioned she had spoken of taking her own life, he never mentioned he feared she might. She was given a safety assessment which stated she was not at risk of self-harm or harm to others. She never left a suicide note. Her family members don’t believe she would have done this. She had children. She was loved in the community and it appears had no financial problems or any other problems to worry about.

He used past tense language which we could accept if he had accepted she was dead but he quickly made corrections to his words which show he was aware and sensitive to what he had said.

Something else to consider:

“I know somebody who is a licensed clinical nurse practitioner”

“Kristin met with [the nurse practitioner] while my daughter and I were in the room next to her”

“She made plans with a nurse practitioner, her sister-in-law, to have the labs drawn on Monday.”

He says I know “somebody” who is a nurse – later it is Kirstin “she made plans” with “a” nurse practitioner her “sister in law”

If this is Jay Westra`s sister, he calls her somebody.

He didn’t say “my sister is a nurse practitioner” (or even Kristins sister)he uses “somebody” he doesn’t give the connection. Then he says she made plans with “a” nurse. Why did he not simply say that his sister is a nurse practitioner?

Anonymous said...

Frommindtomatter, I agree with you. I would be very surprised if this was in fact a suicide. Hopefully, her brother/family will insist on a second autopsy/(criminal) investigation.

Autumn

General P. Malaise said...


I haven't followed the case but have read the comments here.if the piece below is accurate it raises some red flags.

.............Her husband said in an interview with NBC News that she had been experiencing anxiety and sleepless nights recently. The day before she disappeared Westra was assessed by a licensed clinical nurse practitioner and determined not to be at risk of harm to herself or others............


if the husband said this while she was missing it shows he is aware of a suicidal tendency or he knew she would be found in what appears to be a suicide. (it looks bad for the husband) also to say "........licensed clinical nurse practitioner ......." is unexpected. the need to provide such a statement (NTP) about the qualifications is like alibi building.

frommindtomatter said...

Autumn

"Frommindtomatter, I agree with you. I would be very surprised if this was in fact a suicide. Hopefully, her brother/family will insist on a second autopsy/(criminal) investigation."

I hope they do too. All we can do now is wait and see what developes which is frustrating.

Buckley said...

I took it to mean there were two different nurse practitioners, one he works with and one they are related to.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Buckley said...

aren't they all "licensed". it is an unnecessary word, even the word "practitioner" could have been left out. it speaks to NTP.

tania cadogan said...

I wonder if said nurse practitioner is now concerned she is leaving herself open to lawsuits?
Was this off the books or on the books?
If on the books she may be covered by her insurance should someone decide to take it further is she decided she was not at risk of self harm and then have her commit suicide.
If off the books she may be in trouble as her insurance likely would not cover her for out of hours consultations.
What does her role as a licensed clinical nurse practitioner involve?
Does it cover psychiatric diagnoses.
I suspect this may get a tad messy.

Buckley said...

Nurse practitioners have training/education requirements above a RN (Registered Nurse). Nurse practitioners can do things that doctors do, such as prescribe some medications. They are more independent to make decisions without a doctor than an RN.

frommindtomatter said...

Sunday bedtime | Kristin and Jay read together; she tells him she feels better

"We decided that we weren't going to watch TV — we don't watch TV in our room — but since our renovations the TV's just there, so we have slipped into doing that, so we said no, we're going to read books and go to sleep. She told me she felt better, we had a plan, and Kristin is a person who when she has a plan she sticks to the plan and she follows through and she does things well, every time."

“We decided” means a discussion about whether or not to watch TV occurred in order for a decision to be made. If there needed to be a discussion then there must have been opposing views on the matter.

“We have slipped into doing that, so “we” said no “we're” going to read books and go to sleep”

Sounds like that’s what jay wanted whether Kristin agreed we will never know. But if they had to have a discussion in order to decide then someone must have lost that discussion. Remember Jay didn’t have to tell us anything about not watching TV but he has done which means it is important to him.

“She “told” me she felt better” – notice she “told” him (stronger tone language). He didn’t say she said she felt better. This shows she felt she had to tell him. An example would be if someone pesters you, you might tell them to go away.

“we had a plan, and Kristin is a person who when she has a plan she sticks to the plan and she follows through and she does things well, every time.”

Notice how this starts with “we had a plan” and then moves to -

“when she has a plan” – I see Jay as a very controlling person. I believe he makes Kristins plans for her and then “she follows through and she does things well, every time.”

He tells us when she has a plan “she does things well” which is another way of saying when she doesn’t have a plan she doesn’t do so well.

I worry that Kristin couldn’t live up to Jays expectations on how to live her life. Jay made the plans and Kristin had to follow through with them.

Bobcat said...

I think a more detailed transcription of Jay's interview would reveal more ums, uhs, pauses, and broken sentences.

Jay himself is a nurse.

frommindtomatter said...

Jays first mention of the nurse practitioner:

“We have a [sic] I know somebody who is a licensed clinical nurse practitioner and she graciously got us an appointment at 3 o'clock on Sunday.”

“We have a [sic] I know somebody who is a licensed clinical nurse practitioner”

He censors himself - “we have a… I know somebody”

We have a what? – a friend, a relation?

But he changes to “I know somebody” – genderless person.

So is the nurse practitioner Jay or Kristins “sister in law?”

It seems to me the nurse is the same one mentioned on 3 different occasions. But there is sensitivity in mentioning them on Jays part.

Lucia D said...

Jay’s comments after his wife went missing, and before her body was found reek of narrative building. Even alibi building? What a sad story, either way. He shows a militaristic need to control, giving his wife “plans”that she stuck to. And he does throw out unusual pronouns and verb tenses. Me thinks he was setting her up for a “suicide”. The manner of death will be interesting to know. I would also like to know how he benefits by her death. IE insurance money, new girlfriend waiting in the wings or the like. Deception is indicated, the question is why he is being deceptive.

Lucia D said...

Jay’s comments after his wife went missing, and before her body was found reek of narrative building. Even alibi building? What a sad story, either way. He shows a militaristic need to control, giving his wife “plans”that she stuck to. And he does throw out unusual pronouns and verb tenses. Me thinks he was setting her up for a “suicide”. The manner of death will be interesting to know. I would also like to know how he benefits by her death. IE insurance money, new girlfriend waiting in the wings or the like. Deception is indicated, the question is why he is being deceptive.

General P. Malaise said...


Blogger Buckley said...
Nurse practitioners


yes I am aware of that.

if the husband said these things before her body was found it looks like he knew something and his language indicates that.

if your wife went missing would you say "........licensed clinical nurse practitioner ......."

would you say ".....not to be at risk of harm to herself or others............"


that shows sensitivity. did he suspect she would commit suicide?

tania cadogan said...

She told me she felt better, we had a plan, and Kristin is a person who when she has a plan she sticks to the plan and she follows through and she does things well, every time."

Plan is mentioned 3 times in the above making it sensitive to him.

As Frommindtomatter points out, if there was a plan she did well which leads to the question if she didn't have a plan did she not do well?

Who was the one making the plan for her?
This smacks of controlling behavior, why the need for such control?
How long had the plan making been going on for?
What prompted it?
What had she done when not on a plan?

Peter Hyatt said...

Re : the recent case discussion on the Maine case. Commenting has been interesting to read.

Please keep in mind the analyst designates sensitivity indicators in importance. They are taken together and "weighed in the balances" for a final opinion.

Note:

The pronoun "we" is instinctive and it is powerful.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Re: Isabel Celis


Consider the implication of the father by the accused:

https://www.scribd.com/document/389172689/Christopher-Clements-Investigation

I don't know, but continue to wait to learn.

Peter

John mcgowan said...

The sensitivity indicators both before and after, maybe through "guilt". In my limited knowledge i believe he is not directly involved with her death.

He may, however, contributed to her state of mind. Which may have been the straw that broke the camels back.

Time will tell

frommindtomatter said...

I have been making a transcript of the full 24 minute interview with jay Westra from the video. I hope to have it finished tomorrow evening and will post up the parts which have not already been covered here for those who wish to analyse it.

Mike Dammann said...

"He told investigators he had media storage devices with surveillance video that would show Isabel's father on video at a local pawn shop, and implied that would help explain what had happened to Isabel."
Clements' statement implicating the father.
Very vague. But could be due to him wanting to keep this "bargaining chip" til he gets a deal.
Still: Y-STR evidence connecting Clements to the crime scene and so much else makes it unlikely that he speaks from anything other than experiential memory when revealing any type of knowledge of what happened to Isabel.

Anonymous said...


https://www.scribd.com/document/389172689/Christopher-Clements-Investigation

Christopher Clements told officers that his car was equipped with video and audio recording devices; this is a key detail I had never seen before.

He also reportedly insulted officers with Spanish surnames, declaring that they had no right to be in country and were there illegally.

frommindtomatter said...

Jay Westra
This picks up from where Johns post finished in regards to the interview with Westra. I have transcribed it.

Part 1.

“Umm.., I`m losing track of the days and the time um.., people have been working hard. I`ve been impressed um.., the s.s.. state and the wardens and the sheriffs have all been very kind and concerned. Up until today we`ve not had volunteer’s looking because we didn’t want to confuse the scent for animals or disturbances in the woods for the dogs. Um…, And were just looking and looking. Volunteers are now looking on roadways and walking alongside the road. And in public areas we still don’t want people to go into the woods because that’s where the professionals are doing their good work.”

“Um.., the outpouring of support from the community has been huge. Um.., my wife is loved…., my wife is loved dearly. She’s a part of [inaudible] community; she’s a teacher there and has been for fourteen years. She`s a part of the North Yarmouth community, she`s part of the Cumberland community um.., where our children go to school, it’s a combined school district. Um.., And there’s not a person that I know of that can think anything bad about my wife.”

“She’s held in high esteem, she has a plan, she follows a plan, she solves problems. She helps people solve problems. Children depend on her um.., I depend on her. Um.., there’s a large community of people around the country that are concerned about her. I`ve been getting calls from California from a good friend, from Vermont, people have driven here from Massachusetts. There are people working hard through media um.., everybody just wants her home and nobody can understand what happened.”

[What do you think her state of mind was Sunday night going into Monday morning?]

“I have a hard time knowing that, um.., Kristin is a rock, she`s see a problem, and she`s not afraid of problems. She knows how to solve problems, and she`s always had a plan and followed it, and been successful.”

[(first few words of question are missing) she be injured or have fallen down, I mean where’s your head at on that?]

“I have all those fears. I…. I have no comprehension of what could have happened besides those fears.”

[Can you tell me how difficult this has been for you and for your children?]

“(Long pause and deep breath) this is the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life. Kristin is the love of my life she`s perfect for me. This is hard for communities; this is hard for our daughter, our stepson….. This is hard for everybody that’s ever known her. And will ever know her.”

frommindtomatter said...

Part 2.

[What do you tell your children, what are your conversations like and how are they all coping with this as well?]

“I told my daughter that sometimes adults have, s..s..stress or worries or anger, and just like she would, sometimes adults need time to think. My daughter sometimes needs to go somewhere to have some time alone to collect her thoughts and figure out what she would need to talk to about or who to talk about something. And I explained to my daughter that possibly Kristin had some worries and some thoughts and she may have tried to go somewhere to think about those things. And that she may have gotten lost and that we have many many helpers trying to find her and keep her safe. And anything beyond that are just worries that we don’t have information about.”

[Can you tell me when your wife left the home, what do you think she may have been wearing (inaudible). Were there any kind of concerns about someone trying to enter the home or any signs you know that she may have left, obviously in an un-normal way, you know being forced to leave or anything like that?]

“Um.., because of the construction our sort of normal routine has been disrupted. I don’t have a good idea of what she was wearing when she left. My thoughts are guesses and just surmising from what I see that’s left. Um.., I truly don’t know if she had a third pair of running shoes, which she very well may have. Umm.., so it’s either a pair of running shoes or a pair of flip flops that are not here. I don’t know what she`s wearing, umm.. I know that the raincoat she usually wears was in her car umm..”
“The only thing that was unusual was the garage door, the back entrance was slightly open, about 3 inches. And truthfully that’s something that the latch catches every once in a while and the door doesn’t go all the way shut. So that may be a way she would have left the building. Umm.., Our front door is noisier and she may have left the back door not trying to wake anybody up. She`s a thoughtful person and if we were asleep she would not want to wake us up.”

“The question of having somebody take her from the house. She is a strong, powerful person and I would have heard something. I can’t imagine a scenario where somebody would be able to take her from the house without noise and without a fight.”

[How fearful are you that there is foul play involved?]

“Like I told my daughter and I guess I`m using my own therapy on myself, um.., those are worries, we don’t have facts, and worries are things that are there, you acknowledge them. But without facts, without information, you can’t do anything with them, and you can’t make any plans with them.”

[And she was not any medication was that correct?]

“The only medication I’ve known Kristin to take is ibuprofen….., since I`ve known her.”

[This is a tough question for me to ask but I will just pose it to you. Is there any concerns you have they she may have just wanted to, you know, because of the overwhelming stress in her life that she decided that she needed time away and wanted to walk away?]

“No. Umm…, No. If she needed that time she would have “tolden” me, told me she needed that time, and I would have said yes you should have that time. If I felt she was safe, umm.., She knows that I would trust her implicitly and if she came to me and she said “Jay I need a break, I need a week off, I need a month off, I have a plan, I`m safe, I`m going to do this and take care of myself,” I would have said how can I help you. We have to explain to the children that there not scared, and that would have happened um.., with my support. She knows that I support her in whatever she does and whatever she needs, and she would not have to do this without help.”

frommindtomatter said...

Part 3.

[The stress that your wife was dealing with, would you see that as a trigger to what’s happened here you know, I know you said she was dealing with stress, she was seeing a therapist, you know she was working it out?]

“She saw a therapist, she saw a therapist once. Umm.., for advice for a situation, umm.., she may have continued that, and it was recommended that she get that help to talk, to help her work through the next few months. Umm.., I missed the rest of the question.”

[Again this is a difficult question for me to ask. Did you guys have any problems in your marriage that may have warranted her to take a break , I mean were things going well, were you having troubles as people often do? (Westra taking loud big deep breathes while being asked this question)]

“Umm.., Kristin always does well even when we had small problems, and as a married couple we had small problems. Umm.., truthfully they were always bigger problems to me and she made them small problems by her, sort of gracious strong way of saying “it’s a small problem we`ll deal with it and this is not a big deal.” Umm…………… (Very long pause Westra seems to shut down, the interviewer picks up and this and asks another question)”

[And again another question that’s difficult for me to ask but I just want to get your take on this. I’ve covered many of these stories, I`m sure you’ve seen many of these stories in the news, and often times the husband is, just by matter of default kind of a suspect in cases like these. Do you have concerns or worries that could be the same the same in this case as well?]

“Well that’s only logical, that is standard procedure. If you’ve watched any crime movies or shows umm.., I think there’s some truth in that in standard operating procedures for state police, and others, and it seems logical.”

[Is there anything you want to tell people, we`re gonna obviously cover this story and we`re going to present the case as has been presented by you and what you`ve told us that’s happened. Is there anything you want to tell people. I mean you have the natural reaction that’s going to be, could the husband be involved. Is there anything you want to say about that?]

“Umm.., I think you can take all my previous answers as an answer to that. Umm.., and judge them from what they`ve been judged. I`ve umm.., I`ve done nothing to…, umm, impede the investigation in fact I`ve done everything possible that I can to help. I don’t personally care about my situation right now, my situation is secondary, my feelings are secondary. The primary thing is the return of Kristin to me and her family. Umm, Everything else is secondary. I don’t care what people think, I don’t care what people umm, gossip. That’s a none issue non…,non thought to me. I only have one thought.”

[I`ll ask you this just because I have to ask you this. Did you have anything to do with your wifes disappearance?]

“I think I`ve answered all that. Umm, I don’t think anything in this discussion has, would have a different answer to that question.”

frommindtomatter said...

Brother of Kristin Westra opens up about her life

https://wgme.com/news/local/brother-of-kristin-westra-opens-up-about-her-life

Anonymous said...

Frommindtomatter, thanks for the transcript. That must have cost a lot of time. I just read the facebook post by Kristin Westra's brother. It's heartbreaking. Yesterday, I listened to the entire interview with Jay Westra for the first time. I don't believe that something "snapped" in Kristin's mind.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Some thoughts on Part 1 offrommindtomatter's transcript (hereafter: Transcript):

In § 2 of Part 1 of the Transcript, Jay says:
”And there’s not a person that I know of that can think anything bad about my wife.”
- This seems an odd thing to say. Why does Jay – out of the blue – come up with the (im)possibility of thinking bad thoughts about his wife?

In § 3 of Part 1 of the Transcript, Jay says:
“She’s held in high esteem, she has a plan, she follows a plan, she solves problems. She helps people solve problems. Children depend on her um.., I depend on her. (…) um.., everybody just wants her home and nobody can understand what happened.”
- It seems Jay cannot stop saying the word “plan”. In his first answers, he had already mentioned that Kristin is a great planner. Now he also describes her as a problem solver. Why, under these circumstances, are these specific qualities so important to Jay that he keeps mentioning them? Those who commit heinous acts cannot stop giving details of their crime(s) between the lines of their statements. Deep down they badly want to confess. I don’t know if Jay is responsible for Kristin’s death, but his unusual repetition of the words “plan” and “solve problems” makes me wonder if Jay had a “plan” OF HIS OWN that would solve HIS “problems”.
- The phrase “nobody can understand what happened” also caught my attention. I would expect Jay to say: “nobody knows what happened”. Does HE know what happened and are others unable to understand it?

In § 4 of Part 1 of the Transcript, the interviewer asks Jay: “What do you think her state of mind was Sunday night (…)?”Jay answers:
I have a hard time knowing that, um.., Kristin is a rock, she`s see a problem, and she`s not afraid of problems. She knows how to solve problems, and she`s always had a plan and followed it, and been successful.”
- It seems strange that Jay had a hard time knowing what Kristin’s state of mind was Sunday night. After all, he sat down with Kristin that day to make a detailed and comprehensive health plan for her. He then took her to a general nurse practitioner and they discussed the outcome of this health check. In addition, Jay and Kristin had dinner and went to bed together that evening. Of course one can never really know what goes on in somebody else’s mind. But under these circumstances to have no inkling of her state of mind?
- Also: Jay doesn’t exactly describe Kristin as suicidal. In fact, it’s the opposite: she’s a rock, a great problem solver and unafraid of problems. In one of his first answers Jay also mentions that the general nurse practitioner had performed a safety assessment and that Kristin was not at risk for any harm to herself. There are more examples. I get the feeling that Jay on the one hand wants us to believe that Kristin was unstable (anxiety, sleeplessness) whereas on the other hand he takes every opportunity to make clear: she was not the suicidal type. Is he subconsciously telling us: she did not commit suicide?
- Jay describes Kristin as a rock. Synonyms of “rock” are (i.a.): “disaster” and “falter” (see: www.thesaurus.com). I don’t know if “rock” is often used in that sense. However, I wonder if Jay is subconsciously telling us that he “has a hard time” because Kristin “is a disaster”, “a problem” and that he is “afraid of problems”. Further on in the interview, he literally says that he perceives their marital problems as bigger than Kristin did. Again: could it be that Jay tried to solve these problems by “successful(ly)” “following” a “plan”?

Cont.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

In § 9 of Part 1 of the Transcript, Jay says:
“(Long pause and deep breath) this is the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life. Kristin is the love of my life she`s perfect for me. This is hard for communities; this is hard for our daughter, our stepson….. This is hard for everybody that’s ever known her. And will ever know her.
- If I remember correctly frommindtomatter also commented on this: the phrase “This is hard for everybody that’s ever known her implies that Jay thinks Kristin is no longer alive. He then quickly corrects himself by saying “And will ever know her.” If he thought she was still alive, I would have expected him to say: “This is hard for everybody that knows her.”
- The phrase “this is the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life” also caught my attention. Especially, the words “to do”. I would expect: “the hardest thing I have ever experienced or gone through”. What exactly is it that he had to do?

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Westra Part 2, Paragraph 1.

“And I explained to my daughter that possibly Kristin had some worries and some thoughts and she may have tried to go somewhere to think about those things.”

He says she may have “tried” to go somewhere.

I would have expected “she may have gone somewhere.” He is telling us she may have attempted to go somewhere which begs the question of how does he know she only tried?

That is pretty worrying language to use.

Another question arises from this. When she was restless in bed and she got up, is it possible she was going to leave Jay? Because after all “she had a plan.”

frommindtomatter said...

Autumn

“The phrase “this is the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life” also caught my attention. Especially, the words “to do”. I would expect: “the hardest thing I have ever experienced or gone through”. What exactly is it that he had to do?”

I agree we would expect him to talk of what he is experiencing but he uses “to do” which relates to actions. Possibly he uses it with regards to having to deal with the Police and the media. It is unexpected.

Mizzmarple said...

Thank you for transcribing and posting this interview.

He does not answer the last question with a simple "no". What a convoluted response to a simple question.

Anonymous said...

Some thoughts on § 4 of Part 2 of frommindtomatter's Transcript:

In § 4 of Part 2 of the Transcript, Jay says:
“Um.., because of the construction our sort of normal routine has been disrupted. I don’t have a good idea of what she was wearing when she left. My thoughts are guesses and just surmising from what I see that’s left. Um.., I truly don’t know if she had a third pair of running shoes, which she very well may have. Umm.., so it’s either a pair of running shoes or a pair of flip flops that are not here. I don’t know what she`s wearing, umm.. I know that the raincoat she usually wears was in her car umm..”
“The only thing that was unusual was the garage door, the back entrance was slightly open, about 3 inches. And truthfully that’s something that the latch catches every once in a while and the door doesn’t go all the way shut. So that may be a way she would have left the building. Umm.., Our front door is noisier and she may have left the back door not trying to wake anybody up. She`s a thoughtful person and if we were asleep she would not want to wake us up.”


- Jay says he “truly” doesn’t know if Kristin “had” a third pair of running shoes. “truly” may mean that Jay was not truthful in previous parts of his statement (e.g.: he KNOWS what she was wearing when she left). Also, the words “Kristin had refers to Kristin in the past tense which may imply that Jay doesn’t think she is still alive (or: knows that she is no longer alive).

- Jay says: “And truthfully that’s something that the latch catches every once in a while (…).” The word “truthfully” may mean that he, again, is not truthful in previous parts of his statement (e.g. the slightly open garage door was not the only thing that was unusual).

- According to psychiatrist Hodges, perpetrators subconsciously use certain words as “message markers” (examples are: “tell”, “talking”, “information” and “know”). I.e.: these words are indicators that a perpetrator is about to spill important details of his/her crime between the lines of their statements. If Jay harmed Kristin, I think he may unknowingly use “truth” and “truthful “ as such markers. I have seen them being used as such in other statements. Details of a crime are often spilt in a symbolic language. In this case, the phrase: “So that (…) way she (…) left the building” may be symbolic language for “this is how she died”. If so, the preceding sentence(s) may contain secret information about HOW Kristin died. In the preceding sentences, Jay talks about a “door” , a “slightly open” “entrance” (about “3 inches”), a “latch” that “catches” “once” in a while and “a door” that (doesn’t) go “ all the way shut”. Let’s assume that Kristin’s death was a staged suicide. In that case, “latch” might be an indication that a gun was used (a “flat latch” is a type of gun and a “latch” is also a part of a gun). Suicide by gun is often executed by a single (“once”) shot (“go all the way shut”) in the mouth (a “slightly open” “entrance”). After that, she “left” and during the process, she did not “wake up”. Remember: this interview was given BEFORE Kristin was found. Also remember: at the beginning of the interview Jay said that the “plan” involved “blood” work on Monday. Is this how Kristin “left the building”? It's just a theory.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Some thoughts on § 11 of Part 2 of frommindtomatter's transcript:

In § 11 of Part 2 of the Transcript, Jay says:
“No. Umm…, No. If she needed that time she would have “tolden” me, told me she needed that time, and I would have said yes you should have that time. If I felt she was safe, umm.., She knows that I would trust her implicitly and if she came to me and she said “Jay I need a break, I need a week off, I need a month off, I have a plan, I`m safe, I`m going to do this and take care of myself,” I would have said how can I help you. We have to explain to the children that there not scared, and that would have happened um.., with my support. She knows that I support her in whatever she does and whatever she needs, and she would not have to do this without help.”
- Here, between the lines, Jay may be giving us additional details of the “plan”. These details are announced by a strong “message marker” (see my previous reaction): “tolden”[sic]/”told”. Read the words in bold: he needed a break; he had a plan; he was safe (wanted to feel safe?); he would do “this” and take care of himself; he would help Kristin leave; he would have to explain it to the children; what happened, happened with his support ; whatever happened to Kristin, it happened with Jay’s support and help.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Some thoughts on Part 3 of frommindtomatter's transcript:

In § 4 of Part 3 of the Transcript, Jay says:
“Umm.., Kristin always does well even when we had small problems, and as a married couple we had small problems. Umm.., truthfully they were always bigger problems to me and she made them small problems by her, sort of gracious strong way of saying “it’s a small problem we`ll deal with it and this is not a big deal.” Umm…………… (…)”
- “truthfully” in the second sentence of this statement may imply that Jay is not truthful in the previous sentence, i.e.: their marital problems were by no means “small”. In fact, in the second sentence Jay says in so many words that he perceived their marital problems as “bigger”.
- In the first sentence, Jay says: “we had small problems” and “as a married couple we had small problems”. Note: he uses the past tense when talking about their marital problems and about them as a married couple. To be fair: “we had” may also indicate that their problems were in the past and that there were no problems just prior to Kristin’s disappearance. HOWEVER, from everything Jay told us, I get the impression that there WERE problems just before her disappearance: anxiety, sleeplessness, stress over the reconstruction, etc. Also, if the problems were in the past, I would have expected him to say: “we have had small problems”.
- Also note: in this statement Jay again describes Kristin as a mentally strong person. A person that would waive away problems. It just doesn’t fit with the image of a suicidal person or a person that would be profoundly rocked by a home reconstruction.

In § 5 of Part 3 of the Transcript, the interviewer askes:”(…) often times the husband is, just by matter of default kind of a suspect in cases like these. Do you have concerns or worries that could be the same the same in this case as well?” Jay answers:
“Well that’s only logical, that is standard procedure. If you’ve watched any crime movies or shows umm.., I think there’s some truth in that in standard operating procedures for state police, and others, and it seems logical.
- Jay doesn’t deny involvement in the disappearance here. Even though this question seems to be the perfect opportunity for him to do so. For the innocent “I didn’t do it” flows easily and quickly. They often say it without being asked and don’t elaborate as they do not feel the need for emphasis.
- The words there’s some truth in that jump out to me. According to Jay, there’s “some truth” in WHAT exactly? In the fact that state police and others as a matter of standard procedure treat the husband as a suspect in cases like these? That either happens or not and – at least in my opinion – has little to do with “truth”. Or is he telling us that he thinks there’s some truth in the husband being the likely suspect in cases like these? Is it true in this case?

Cont.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

In § 8 of Part 3 of the Transcript, Jay says (after being asked if he has anything to say about people speculating whether the husband could be involved):
“Umm..,I think you can take all my previous answers as an answer to that. Umm.., and judge them from what they`ve been judged. I`ve umm.., I`ve done nothing to, umm, impede the investigation in fact I`ve done everything possible that I can to help. I don’t personally care about my situation right now, my situation is secondary, my feelings are secondary. The primary thing is the return of Kristin to me and her family. Umm, Everything else is secondary. I don’t care what people think, I don’t care what people umm, gossip. That’s a none issue non…,non thought to me. I only have one thought.”
- Jay’s first reaction is not a denial. Instead he refers us to the rest of his answers, implying that they will tell us whether or not he is involved in his wife’s disappearance. He then reluctantly utters the word’s “I’ve done nothing to…”. However, he just can’t seem to bring himself to say the words “I have nothing to do with it” or “I have done nothing to make Kristin disappear.” If he can’t say it, we can’t say it for him.
- General rule of statement analysis: for the guilty, saying “I didn’t do it” is tough. People will rarely ever lie outright because the brain protects itself from being accused of lying.
- Jay says: “my situation right now, my situation is secondary, my feelings are secondary.” Another word for “secondary” is “dependent” (see: www.thesaurus.com). Earlier, Jay told us: ”Children depend on her um.., I depend on her.” Could it be that Jay and the children depend on Kristin financially? Who, if anyone, profits financially from Kristin’s death?

At the end of Part 3 of the Transcript (§§ 9 and 10), Jay gets another opportunity to say he is innocent. Again, we don’t get a denial. Again, Jay refers us to the rest of his answers.

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Jay Westra

Part 2, paragraph 2

“I told my daughter that sometimes adults have, s..s..stress or worries or anger,”

I see that Jay introduced the word “anger” into his language. We have been led to believe this is all about “anxiety” which Kristin was suffering from, but It seems strange that Jay`s mind would see fit to select the word anger in connection to her.

Part 2, paragraph 4

“I truly don’t know if she had a third pair of running shoes, which she very well may have”

Autumn picked up on this sentence. There are a few indicators here.

“Truly” – shows the need to convince, and as Autumn said casts doubt on whether he is being fully truthful in his statement. Here it is connected to the negative of “not knowing something” which suggests Westra may well know more than he is telling. He wants to convince us that he doesn’t.

“Had” – Again spotted by Autumn shows yet another use of past tense language by Westra in his statement. We would have expected “has” but Westras mind chose to use the past tense “had.” At the very least we know that Westra considers his wife deceased by his language. We must question what brings him to his conclusion?

“Very” - used to add extra emphasis. He wants to sell us the idea that she had another pair of running shoes, he did not need to tell us this information but he feels it is important that we know it.

He also mentions “a third pair of running shoes.” He doesn’t say “another pair” but is very specific and gives us a number. We have learnt from his words that she definitely has two pairs and he would like us to believe it’s possible she has another. We see from this that he would like us to entertain the possibility she went running at the time of her going missing.

frommindtomatter said...

Jay Westra

Part 3, paragraph 4.

“Umm.., Kristin always does well even when we had small problems, and as a married couple we had small problems. Umm.., truthfully they were always bigger problems to me and she made them small problems”

We see past tense references again in Westras language.

“We had” – used twice, “they were” and “she made.”

Add to those indicators the minimisation language of “we had small problems” which he repeats twice which shows sensitivity. We then move to him using the word “truthfully” and his admittance that the problems were a big deal to him.

He literally tells us that Kristin is the one who always does well in regards to problems. He doesn’t do so well as what were bigger problems to him didn’t bother Kristin. It’s like saying she made light of what he considered to be important which in itself could lead to marital problems and perhaps anger.

Kimberly Bow said...

Very good. I never thought of that.

John mcgowan said...

frommindtomatter

Thank you for taking the time.out for the transcript

Anonymous said...

Kristin Westra – a possible scenario

According to online information, Kristin Westra lived on Lufkin Road (North Yarmouth) and was found in the woods near 83 Gray Road (+ 500 ft off the road). That is a distance of circa 0.43 mile as the crow flies.

Let’s assume she didn’t commit suicide but was transported from her home to where she was found. It would have been nearly impossible to carry her on foot: Kristin weighed around 140 pounds, the route consists of woodland and it was raining heavily that night.

Therefore, in the given scenario she would have almost certainly been transported – at least partly – by car. It seems unlikely that this happened via the route given by Google Maps. It would have been too risky: the car could have been seen by residents or caught by possible camera systems.

So what would have been the logical route? The woods between Lufkin Road and Gray Road are split in half by a large, rectangular open space with electricity grid works (see Google Maps). The space seems accessible to cars: tracks are visible alongside the grid. Via this open space, a car could have transported Kristin relatively near to where she was found.

The final part of the route was probably not accessible by car. She was found in woods that border on a little open space that looks park-ish. She would probably have to have been carried or dragged there from the large open space with electricity grids.

Whoever transported her, would have thought about a space where to bring Kristin beforehand. This person would have needed a flashlight. It would have been really hard work, given Kristin’s weight, the tough terrain, the darkness and the heavy rain. This person would be very concerned that he would be seen, that he would lose track, that he would leave tracks such as scent trails and that he might disturb dogs or other animals. This person would be constantly looking around to see if he was safe. Of course he wouldn’t want people to go into the woods because that’s where he was doing (or: had done) his work.

This entire scenario would have left a huge impression on the person that transported Kristin. All the above details would be at the forefront of his mind when he would talk about her disappearance. And chances are that he would subconsciously spill these details in his statements.

Cont.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Now look at Jay Westra’s below statements. Could it be that he - between the lines – replays the exact same scenario as outlined in my previous post, down to the last detail? Read the words in bold, capital letters: he thought of a place; got in his car; drove to the place he had thought of; a place where Kristin would go; in the neighborhood; stopped in the center [the open space in the center of the woods?]; [near] a small park; working hard; working hard; working hard; not too long after that getting in the woods with flashlight; grid work; it was late and wet and dark; losing track; working hard and being very concerned; looking; didn’t want to [cause] scent for animals or disturbances in the woods for dogs; and just looking and looking; looking on roadways walking alongside the road; didn’t want people to go into the woods because that’s where he was doing his work.

"After that, I STARTED to walk in A few PLACEs THAT I could THINK OF. I GOT IN MY CAR AND DROVE TO a few PLACEs THAT I could THINK OF, PLACEs WHERE SHE WOULD GO for a run IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND AFTER THAT, I STOPPED and I WENT [SIC] IN THE CENTER OF town there's A SMALL PARK, AND I STOPPED and I asked a sheriff to help us. And after the sheriff started helping us he followed me back.

The sheriff's office has BEEN WORKING HARD since then and they are still WORKING HARD. The state police interviewed me and they are still WORKING HARD. AND NOT TOO LONG AFTER THAT, in the afternoon, the Maine Warden Service started GETTING INvolved. They started doing An organized WOOD search WITH dogs and FLASHLIGHTs and GRID WORK. And at a certain point in time, IT WAS too LATE AND too WET AND too DARK to continue, and they started everything BACK up AT 6 A.M. [Tuesday] MORNING."

“Umm.., I`M LOSING TRACK of the days AND the time um.., people HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD. I`ve been impressed um.., the s.s.. state AND the wardens and the sheriffs HAVE all BEEN VERY kind and CONCERNED. Up until today we`ve not had volunteer’s LOOKING because we DIDN’T WANT TO confuse the SCENT FOR ANIMALS OR DISTURBANCES IN THE WOODS FOR the DOGS. Um…, AND were JUST LOOKING AND LOOKING. Volunteers are now LOOKING ON ROADWAYS and WALKING ALONGSIDE THE ROAD. AND in public areas we still DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO GO INTO THE WOODS BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE the professionals are DOING their good WORK.


Autumn

Willow said...

The length of Jay's answers = NTP. Verbal leakage, need to be in good graces of the reacuers and interviewers, positioning himself as victim and definitely above Kristin.

"I`ve umm.., I`ve done nothing to…, umm, impede the investigation in fact I`ve done everything possible that I can to help." He reveals he's thinking of impeding first, then helping. The same pattern in speaking of Kristin in past tense, then correcting himself quickly.

The pair of running-shoes of flip-flops that "are not here". How does he know a pair of Kristin's footwear is missing as he says he isn't even certain of how many pairs there should be. Did she have footwear on when found?

Jay doesn't want to remember nor guess what the victim wore the night she disappeared. Had he given the clothing, she could've been identified immediately when found. We know that identification took some time, several hours or more. Did he know that her condition was unidentifiable when found?

Does nurse Jay have other relevant local professional contacts besides the licensed clinical nurse practitioner? How thoroughgoing was the autopsy?

Why did Jay not take Kristin to a proper doctor on Sunday 30. Sept afternoon? Why a nurse? Was the visit done in amity or was it Jay's idea? Why didn't Kristin drive herself?

It seems that prescription drugs or some substances may have been needed to transport the victim to the woods at night Sept 30. There may be residue of chemicals to be found unless they're not even searched in the autopsy.
How did the children sleep that particular night?

frommindtomatter said...

"After that I started to walk, in a few places that I could think of. Um.. I got in my car and I drove to a few places that I could think of, places where she would go for a run”

In support of what you are saying Autumn. Westra never says he was looking for Kristin. He says he walked in a few places and “drove to a few places. The words “searched” or “looked” are not in his language.

If he had moved her body at night as in your scenario then he may have left some of his scent behind. If he went near (returned) to the area where he had left the body in the morning he would essentially be covering his own tracks. He could later say that he had walked in that area looking for Kristin.

This would fit in with him only walking in a few places. He would not need to be looking for her.

Anonymous said...

Frommindtomatter, yes, I had thought of that possibility (return to the crime scene). When I read Jay's following statement it struck me as odd:
"I pretended to go out and walk the dogs so I could look a little bit. It was rainy, cold. I couldn't see where she would be.”
Why did he "pretend", why did he look "a little bit" and why does he say "where she would be". I may be wrong but it immediately gave me the impression of someone that KNEW APPROXIMATELY where she was and that was peeking from a distance to see if she was still there (where she "would be"). Remember, it was a dark, rainy night and trees all look the same. So in the above scenario, it may well be that Jay didn't know exactly where he left her. On the other hand, because it rained heavily that night I suppose scent and other trails would have been already washed away (to an extent?) and it would seem quite risky to return to the crime scene.

Indeed, other than this (i.m.o. odd) phrase I don't believe he says explicitly that HE is or has been looking or searching for Kristin. Maybe for that reason the statement that he drove to a few places where she would run, etc., has a non-committal ring to it.

I agree with your previous comments too. Indeed, why does he introduce "anger" in connection to Kristin (projection i.m.o.). And good point about the running shoes ("We see from this that he would like us to entertain the possibility she went running at the time of her going missing.").

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Willow said:

Jay doesn't want to remember nor guess what the victim wore the night she disappeared.

Yes, and also look at how many times he says he doesn't know what she was wearing:

I don’t have a good idea of what she was wearing when she left. My thoughts are guesses and just surmising from what I see that’s left. Um.., I truly don’t know if she had a third pair of running shoes, which she very well may have. Umm.., so it’s either a pair of running shoes or a pair of flip flops that are not here. I don’t know what she`s wearing, umm.. I know that the raincoat she usually wears was in her car umm..”

The more he repeats that he doesn't know what she was wearing, the more I start thinking: you probably know EXACTLY what she was wearing.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Willow said:

It seems that prescription drugs or some substances may have been needed to transport the victim to the woods at night Sept 30. There may be residue of chemicals to be found unless they're not even searched in the autopsy.
How did the children sleep that particular night?


Yes, good question. When Jay talks about the evening before Kristin's disappearance, he says (i.a.):

"(...) we don't watch TV in our room — but since our renovations the TV's just there, so we have slipped into doing that, so we said no, we're going to read books and go to sleep."

The words “slipped into" and "go to sleep” might be a leak that some substance (sleeping pills?) was slipped into a drink. Or perhaps in her food? Remember, Jay also said they had been "changing a little bit in her diet" that day and that she "ate well" that evening. On the other hand, Jay seems like a good planner and I don't think he would want to take the risk that a substance could be discovered during an autopsy. He also said he had only ever seen her take Iboprufen (no other medication/drugs). Perhaps certain substances disappear from your system after a while? Or some substances never even show up during an autopsy? Jay might know more about that as a nurse(?)


Autumn

Alcyone said...

Anonymous (Autumn) says that Jay mentions the word plan 12 times in the first four minutes of his interview.

I find it interesting that the word plan is so sensitive to him. When someone is being assessed as to their risk of following through on suicide, they are usual asked if they have a plan. If someone has an idea of how they will carry out a plan, they are at much higher risk of harm. Jay tells us that at the assessment on Sunday, Kristin was deemed as low risk of harming herself. However, during the interview there are many plans discussed. Is the word plan coming out because he is thinking about an actual suicide plan that Kristin had?

Kristin had a plan....and when Kristin has a plan she always follows through and does things well, every time. It sounds like he is trying to convince us that she did have a suicide plan, making it a forgone conclusion that she would follow it, and be successful at executing it. Perhaps he just fears she had a plan, and is feeling guilty for not realizing it sooner.

frommindtomatter said...

It is interesting that after waking and discovering his wife gone he waits over 2.5 hours before contacting the Police. If he believed she was a suicide risk would he not have acted more quickly in reporting her missing?

“At (6:20 am) I woke up as sort of our usual schedule”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/law-enforcement-dozens-volunteers-searching-missing-maine-woman/story?id=58237677

“Westra's husband woke up Monday morning, discovered that she was not home and reported her missing around 9 a.m., Cumberland County Capt. Scott Stewart said in a press conference Tuesday.”

In his statement Jay Westra tells us:

“Her keys were here. Her purse was here. Her phone was here. Her car was here.”

He also mentions it was rainy and cold and that her coat was in her car.
I think calling the Police first would be the logical option and then going on to search after that.

Unfortunately due to how the video was edited the first few words of the following question are not there.

[(first few words of question are missing) she be injured or have fallen down, I mean where’s your head at on that?]

“I have all those fears. I…. I have no comprehension of what could have happened besides those fears.”

If he was only asked about her sustaining an accidental injury then we take his answer of “I have no comprehension” to mean he has no understanding of what could have happened. We see he doesn’t introduce the possibility she may have harmed herself. He spends a lot of time talking about how Kristin can deal with and solve problems which paints a picture of someone who is strong and independent, not someone who is fragile and vulnerable.

Alcyone said...

I have the same question, frommindtomatter, about why he waited so long to get help when she wasn't in the house. He had already started to "panic slightly" after not seeing her in the next room and "really started to worry" when she wasn't in the garage/kitchen. Even if he hadn't wanted to seem alarmist by calling the police, I would have thought that at the point he would have called some friends or relatives to see if Kristin had contacted any of them.

I wonder if he did contact any friends or neighbors to help him prior to going to the sheriff in the park. Strange if he left that out of his timeline, but he did mention the word "embarrassment" when asked to make an appeal to Kristin. I found that striking. If, in a moment of crisis, she ran out the door with nothing but the clothes on her back, I don't think she would have been thinking of embarrassment. Perhaps Jay was thinking of himself when he used the word embarrassment. Calling for help upon arising and finding her gone, may have been too embarrassing for him. If he did call, mentioning calls to friends might be embarrassing. It would be interesting to know if he is the type of person who likes to handle everything on his own.

frommindtomatter said...

Westra Part 3, paragraph 1.

[The stress that your wife was dealing with, would you see that as a trigger to what’s happened here you know, I know you said she was dealing with stress, she was seeing a therapist, you know she was working it out?]

“She saw a therapist, she saw a therapist once. Umm.., for advice for a situation, umm.., she may have continued that, and it was recommended that she get that help to talk, to help her work through the next few months. Umm.., I missed the rest of the question.”

We see repeated words and the need to convince it was only “once.”

Kristin needed “advice for a situation” – A situation is usually a set of circumstances which a person finds themself in. He does not elaborate on what this situation was.

Even though he told us “she saw a therapist once” he then tells us “she may have continued that” which means he is not sure if his wife was still seeing a therapist. That would be strange in my opinion as it shows lack of connection in their relationship and possibly that whatever Kristin was seeing a therapist about she did not want to share with her husband, as it might have been sensitive to him. Even though he reveals he is not sure if “she may have continued that” he wanted to convince us that it was only “once.”

“was recommended that she get that help to talk” – “that” might be used as distancing language here, either because Westra wishes to distance himself from the problem or he feels distanced due to his wife not including him in the process.

Whatever she was sharing with her therapist doesn’t seem to have been shared with her husband.

Also note that Westra makes a few pauses "umm," during answering this question and then says "I missed the rest of the question. During the interview he has answered compound questions without problem and this question wasn't a particularly difficult one. Perhaps he wanted to avoid it.

frommindtomatter said...

Alcyone said,

“I would have thought that at the point he would have called some friends or relatives to see if Kristin had contacted any of them.”

I agree it is very strange. We expect as he goes through his memory of what happened he would tell us he contacted friends and relatives. I could understand if he made a few calls and upon not having any luck then phoned the police but he doesn’t. Also we see he drives to locate the Sheriff rather than make a 911 call which is interesting.

All of it shows a lack of urgency on his part.

Alcyone said...

I think there are two ways to construe the statement that "....she may have continued that..." in regards to seeing a therapist. One way is that he knows he saw a therapist once and she may have continued without his knowledge and the other way is that she saw a therapist once and she may have been going to continue if she hadn't disappeared. The latter seems like another way of talking in the past tense about her. We would expect to hear "she may continue to see someone to talk about how to work through the next few months" rather than "she may have continued". I think the implication is that working through the next few months would have involved handling the renovations at work and home, renovations having been a major theme in the interview.

Willow said...

Jay says how helpful he would have been had Kristin expressed a wish to take a time-out, travel somewhere by herself, if she would have needed or wanted it. J. says he would have explained it to the children. A good husband. He would have "trusted implicitly" to her.
He doesn't say they would have considered going to therapy together as a couple even though he admits "we" had problems. He portraits himself as the one experiencing the problems bigger than Kristin who "graciously" painted them smaller (for him to solve).

The moment of finding the victim is something the perpetrator cannot control. Was there a need to postpone finding Kristin: no 911 call, contacting the Sheriff after driving and walking for hours, not alerting friends.
The place where Kristin was found was at walking distance from home and probably had scents of Jay already from earlier walks.

If Jay is a controlling husband who pretends as a rule, he may also have isolated Kristin from friends.
I wonder if there appears a confidente, a friend of Kristin's or the family, who has knowledge of how the couple's marriage was doing. The brother has already opened up a bit.

Anonymous said...

Jay’s use of “showered”, “next room”, “neighbor”, “caught” and “groceries” in connection to his daughter

I took a closer look at Jay Westra’s following statements:

"Kristin met with [the nurse pracitioner] while MY DAUGHTER AND I were in the ROOM NEXT to her playing cards.”

"We came home after that and she made me a GROCERY list and I went with MY DAUGHTER to buy GROCERIES. She went for her run on Sunday and that was caught on a neighbor's camera, and so they saw her running. After that, we came home, WE had a really good dinner, she ate well, SHOWERED and put MY DAUGHTER to BED."

"At 6:20 [a.m.], I woke up as sort of our usual schedule. MY DAUGHTER was up, she was getting herself ready for school. I SHOWERED. Didn't want to wake Kristin because I thought possibly she was asleep in the NEXT ROOM. And then after MY SHOWER, I walked by it, did not see her, PANICKED slightly about that, checked on MY DAUGHTER and then went to the garage where we have a small kitchen setup while we're doing renovations. She wasn't there. I started to REALLY WORRY. MY DAUGHTER'S very independent for a 10-year-old and she kept doing her normal morning routine."


In the 2nd and 3rd statement, Jay says the word “shower”/”showered” three times. According to Peter, when a subject unnecessarily references to water, in any form, such as showering, we must explore the subject's need, or connection in some form, to sex and sexual abuse (in this case others also signaled or alluded to this in above comments).

Immediately before and/or after saying “shower”/”showered”, Jay talks about “my daughter”. In the above statements he also places himself and his daughter in a “room next” to Kristin (twice). If Jay’s references to showering reveal a connection to sex/sexual abuse, could this be a connection to his daughter? Were there situations where Jay and his daughter “played” in one room, while Kristin was “asleep” in the next (neighboring) room?

The words “grocery” and “groceries” caught my eye. I wondered: why would it – given the context – be important for Jay to mention that he and his daughter bought groceries? So I searched Peter’s blog for the word “groceries” and a child molestation case popped up where the father made (i.a.) the following statement: The next thing I know she gets home from shopping, wants me to carry in the groceries and my daughter is crying like there's something wrong. "
Statements of perpetrators of similar crimes often seem to follow a similar pattern. At least they often include the same words/references. For instance: I have seen the word “plan” used before in statements of perpetrators of heinous, premeditated murders. So my question is: does “groceries” imply incest? And, if so, why? Is it because it is “gross” behavior? Gross-eries?

Cont.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Further to my previous post:

Jay says the words “was caught” immediately after talking about him and his daughter buying “groceries” and immediately before saying “showered and put my daughter to bed”. The word catch/caught has been used before in statements relating to (possible) incest cases. For instance, the ransom letter in the JonBenet Ramsey case included the following statement:
"Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies."
On this blog, Peter concluded that (1) JonBenet was likely sexually abused, (2) her father’s language contains references associated with sexual abuse and (3) her mother likely knew about the abuse. Others have come to the same conclusion and have indicated that the words “we catch you” likely indicate that the mother caught the father abusing Jonbenet. Could it be that Kristin caught Jay abusing their daughter? From the beginning, I found it strange that he said: “She went for her run on Sunday and that was caught on a neighbor's camera, and so they saw her running.” If Jay was innocent, it would be totally irrelevant to him that Kristin was caught running by a neighbor(’s camera) MANY HOURS BEFORE he had dinner with her, went to bed with her, etc. Could Jay be subconsciously telling us that he was caught and seen by a “neighbor” while performing gross-eries with his daughter? Could this “neighbor” be the person in the “next (“neighboring”) room”, i.e. : Kristin? Is this why he “panicked” and “started to really worry”?

Also: Jay tells us his daughter is “very independent for a 10-year-old”. If so, what does that have to do with the disappearance of his wife? Why does he care to tell us this at this particular moment? Is he trying to make his daughter seem more mature than she really is, somehow justifying possible abusive behavior (or even somehow blaming it on his daughter)?

All in all: could it be that (1) Jay sexually abused his daughter. (2) Kristin caught him doing so and (3) Jay murdered Kristin to prevent her from telling “the communities”? The possible (suspicion of) abuse of her daughter may also explain why Kristin, a strong, laid-back, problem solving, thoughtful person had some stress lately.

Cont.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Further to my previous two posts:

In the following statement, Jay also mentions his daughter repeatedly. The words ”awesome and comfortable” raised my eyebrows. I also wondered why he added the bus-stop sentence. See the words in bold: is he telling us (between the lines) it’s “time to call” it quits with “children” (“over”, “over”, “stop”)? It’s just a guess.

Then, when I came back in — MY DAUGHTER's routine is to practice her piano in the morning and she was doing that, and that gave me time to call a good friend over. He came over to take MY DAUGHTER to school, and that was awesome and comfortable because they often [sic] we go to their house so she can go to the bus stop with those children.

Another statement where Jay mentions his daughter repeatedly is:

I TOLD MY DAUGHTER that sometimes ADULTS have, s..s..stress or worries or anger, and just like she would, sometimes ADULTS need time to THINK. MY DAUGHTER sometimes needs to go somewhere to have some time alone to collect her THOUGHTS and figure out what she would need to TALK to about or who to TALK about something. And I EXPLAINED to MY DAUGHTER that possibly Kristin had some worries and some THOUGHTS and she may have tried to go somewhere to THINK about those things. And that she may have gotten lost and that we have many many helpers trying to find her and keep her safe. And anything beyond that are just worries that we don’t have information about.”

Perhaps this statement lays bare Jay’s (possible) motive more than any other. He is telling us: the “adults” had “stress (…) worries (…) [and] anger” and “Kristin had some worries”. He is also telling us: “adults need[ed] time to think” and “Kristin had (…) some thoughts” and needed “to think about those things”. The question arises: WHY did Kristin need TIME TO THINK? Could it have been “to collect her thoughts and figure out what she would need to talk to about (…) [and] who to talk about”? The next question arises: WHAT would Kristin need to TALK ABOUT? The fact that Jay repeats the words “my daughter” and the words “told” and “talk” and “explained” over and over in this statement, makes me think it may have to do with something the daughter told and explained to her mom. Something that made the mother stressed out, worried and angry. Something that involved “adult” behavior. Could it have been sexual abuse by Jay of his daughter? Was time running out for Jay? Did Kristin “need to go” because she threatened to talk to third parties?
Interestingly, Jay uses many words that can be qualified as message markers (words that indicate an imminent subconscious spill of details of a crime): “told”, “talk”, “explained”, “information””, etc. The frequency with which he uses these markers, make me think that these markers ARE (part of) the actual spill here (i.e. Jay was afraid Kristin would talk about/explain to someone what was going on).

Autumn

Anonymous said...

I have to say: I'm starting to get really worried about Kristin's daughter and her situation right now.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

I mean: if my speculations are true, the daughter has not only just lost her mother, she would also be a victim of sexual abuse and - on top of it all - her life might be in danger.

Autumn

Peter Hyatt said...

The above do not indicate sexual abuse.

I hope to publish some analysis on the case. Seeing what is not in the language warrants both formal training and the support of team analysis.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Peter Hyatt said:

The above do not indicate sexual abuse.

All right, well I certainly hope that I'm wrong.

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Looking back to the beginning of the Westra Interview.

Westras first question in his interview was:

“Jay can you tell me a little bit about what happened?”

This allows Westra to have a free choice of where he wants to start his story. He chooses to start the morning before his wife went missing and opens his account with:

“Sunday morning Kristin was experiencing what I would call some an.. anxiety and umm she expressed that she had some sleepless nights umm.. And was worried and I… (Deep breath) helped her um.. develop a plan. We have a [sic] I know somebody who is a licensed clinical psy.. nurse practitioner, and she graciously got us an appointment at 3 o'clock on Sunday.”

He tells us she was suffering from “what I would call some an.. anxiety”

He doesn’t say she was suffering from anxiety but lets us know it is what he would call anxiety. This shows lack of commitment in his understanding of what was wrong with her. This is shown when he says the word anxiety. He stutters on the word which shows sensitivity towards it. Is what he would call anxiety different to what someone else would call it? He leaves it open to opinion in his language.

“We have a [sic] I know somebody who is a licensed clinical psy.. nurse practitioner”

He begins with “we have a” then censors himself. He changes to “I know somebody.” We have to accept this as deception. He used the powerful pronoun “we” so we should believe him but he has a need to change the pronoun to “I.” Of course he is not lying by saying “I” but why does he need to hide that fact they both know this person?

If one has nothing to hide one can speak freely, there will be no need to correct or censor honest language unless it is sensitive.

I listened to this question and transcribed it so as to be sure it was accurate. What I found was:

“I know somebody who is a licensed clinical psy.. nurse practitioner”

He censors himself again. It sounds like he was going to say psychologist but changes it to licensed nurse practitioner.

He tells us “she graciously got us an appointment at 3 o'clock on Sunday.” This is a very quick turnaround and we wonder how he managed to get an appointment so quickly just a few hours after Kristin expressed her problems to him. We find out:

“She made plans with a nurse practitioner, her sister-in-law, to have the labs drawn on Monday.”

This is highly likely the “we know” that Westra changed to “I know.” Why would he do that, why does he want to hide that fact that there is family connection to the nurse practitioner?

During this appointment Westra tells us:

“And Kristin met with her while my daughter and I were in the room next to her playing cards. Umm.. and then after that, they left and it was [sic] there was a safety assessment”

Westra tells us “after that they left” and starts to tell us “it was” but censors/corrects himself and says “there was a safety assessment.”

Is there sensitivity with “they left”? He could have simply said “after that Kristin had a safety assessment” or something similar.

tania cadogan said...

"I`ve umm.., I`ve done nothing to…, umm, impede the investigation in fact I`ve done everything possible that I can to help."

He tells us first what he didn't do before telling us what he did do.
This is his order or priority.

He tells us he has done nothing to impede the investigation
I would ask what he means by impeding the investigation.
Does this mean lawyering up?
Refusing to cooperate?
Refusing to take a polygraph?
Something else?

in fact I`ve done everything possible that I can to help."
He is comparing his everything possible to help with something else?
In fact to naysay impeding the investigation?
Does he expect to be asked what he has not done and tells us what he has done.

However.
He places restrictions on helping in fact I`ve done everything possible that I can to help."
His helping is sensitive to him>
Are there restrictions on what he can do to help?
Guilt, guilty knowledge or perhaps something else not related to his missing wife such as money worries or infidelity?
The shortest sentence is the best "I'm doing everything possible to find my wife"
"Everything possible that i can to help"
Are there possible things he can do to not help?

He uses plan a lot in relation to his wife and their marriage.

Also,

Kristin always does well even when we had small problems
MY DAUGHTER's routine is to practice her piano in the morning and she was doing that

This smacks of control.

Things have to be done at a certain time and a certain way.
There is a routine which must be followed.

Also when he said Kristin always does well even when we had small problems
I thought of someone praising a dog for being obedient or good at a certain task or a teacher sating their student did well when solving a problem or question.


I keep seeing him as the one in charge, he rules the roost and he doesn't like it when there is a change or they doo badly.

Anonymous said...

The interviewer asked Jay if he had any concerns that Kristin – because of the overwhelming stress in her life – may have decided that she needed time away and wanted to walk away. Jay answers:

“No. Umm…, No. If she needed that time she would have “tolden” me, told me she needed that time, and I would have said yes you should have that time. If I felt she was safe, umm.., She knows that I would trust her implicitly and if she came to me and she said “Jay I need a break, I need a week off, I need a month off, I have a plan, I`m safe, I`m going to do this and take care of myself,” I would have said how can I help you.

- This is a lengthy answer. He could have just said: ”I don’t think so, at least she didn’t tell me she needed time away.” Is this question sensitive to him?
- Also: this answer seems to diametrically oppose the explanation he had reportedly given his daughter: “sometimes adults have, s..s..stress or worries or anger, and (…) sometimes adults need time to think. and Kristin possibly “had some worries and some thoughts and she may have tried to go somewhere to think about those things”.
- In addition, it’s interesting that Jay (repeatedly) says “that time”. I would have expected: “if she needed time” or if “she needed some time”. The word “that” makes it specific. It makes me think there actually may have been talk of Kristin taking some time.
- Tania cadogan mentioned that some of Jay’s phrases smack of control. I think the phrase: “and I would have said yes you should have that time” might be another example: Kristin taking some time away needed his approval.
- Jay also says: “If I felt she was safe” and “I’m safe”. Why the emphasis on safety? Kristin was a grown, independent woman who had always taken care of herself and others. Perhaps the words “safe” allude to mental instability. But according to Jay, Kristin had only told him ON THE MORNING OF HER DISAPPEARANCE that she had some anxiety and sleepless nights. By the way: why did she have to tell him that she had had sleepless nights? Didn't he know that? Did they sleep in separate rooms (Kristin in the “next room”)?

Tania cadogan said that she keeps seeing Jay as the as the one in charge and he doesn't like it when there is a change or they do badly. For some reason, this made me think of something I had read in Kristin’s brother’s facebook message. He said they had an “exemplary” marriage. “Exemplary” takes into consideration how the marriage is or should be perceived by the outside world. It makes me think of perfection. I think I would have just said: happy.

Frommindtomatter, as to the clinical nurse practitioner: I think Jay wanted to say: “we have a relative” but may have quickly realized that the sister-in-law might not want media attention and therefore corrected himself by saying: “I know somebody”.

Autumn

Peter Hyatt said...

Far better than wishing is to inquire.

Where am I wrong?

What is the psychology behind this?

How am I to correct?


Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Consider his use of “we” and the long term impact of living with someone with clinical depression, upon his language.

Some spouses live in daily fear of suicide by spouse.

Eventually, self preservation sets in. This can mirror the so called grieving stage.

Statement Analysis is complex and warrants not only formal training, but critical peer analysis & review.

Those who commit do well. They learn within the first months that they must be self disciplined if they are to obtain success.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Correction “the grieving stages” (plural).

Peter Hyatt said...

Guilt of suicidal spouses is deep but it doesn’t necessitate the conclusion of criminal guilt.

They will regret many things they said and things they believe they should have done.

Dependent upon the length of time of acute depression, self preservation creates defensive posturing.

I think he may be considering a suggestion (perhaps by a professional) that he did not take.

I don’t know but his guilt is present and expected in both non criminal and criminal.

Peter
Peter

Buckley said...

Sage advice, Peter. Thanks for reminding us to think and rethink for error.

To me, the “control” in the marriage is hers, not his. Or at least as much hers. He’s conveying a perception of her in control. Almost in a subtly disparaging way. Her always sticking to a plan. Her insisting what he thought were big problems were little problems. His assertion he’d approve of her taking some time. (And I’d think, since they were raising kids and sharing the responsibility of a household, and one under construction, it would be appropriate to see it as a shared decision, as opposed to his “giving permission” as controlling.

Buckley said...

Even the detail that the construction in the house was causing her anxiety implies her losing control over the household routine was a problem.

Buckley said...

She gave him the grocery list to go shopping...

Anonymous said...

Peter,

You explain that SA requires formal training and the support of team/peer analysis, implying that it is too complex for untrained people. That gives me the idea this blog is not the place for lengthy musings by amateurs (such as mine). In that case, I’m sorry to have intruded. Please feel free to remove my messages.

For completeness sake: throughout I have wondered whether Kristin was suicidal. I scanned other blogs and thought some people were quick to project their own menopausal issues, depressions and experiences with suicidal people on the deceased. I searched for answers in (i.a.) Westra’s interview, the deceased’s brother’s facebook message + other facebook messages. I got exactly the opposite impression. She is described as a smiling, strong, laid-back, positive person who waved problems away. People seem to be utterly blindsided by what happened. The only specific indication of mental problems I have found was Westra saying: Sunday morning [i.e. the morning before she disappeared] Kristin was experiencing what I would call some anxiety and she expressed that she had some sleepless nights and was worried (…). Of course he may have been totally downplaying a long-term clinical depression, I don’t know. And I can indeed imagine that a suicide following an acute depression leads to guilt in the language of the spouse (even though her body had not been found at the time of the interview). I hadn’t considered that enough.

Anyway, I will refrain from further commenting (got carried away). It has been really interesting looking at this case with frommindtomatter and others. You indicated that you may publish something about this case. If so, I look forward to reading it.

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

I can see that Westra could be guilt ridden and be holding himself responsible if his wife committed suicide. Perhaps he feels people will point the finger at him for not taking action that would have protected his wife from herself.

That would account for the fact that he tries so hard to make the point numerous times in his statement how solid she was. One of many examples below.

“Kristin is a rock, she`s see a problem, and she`s not afraid of problems. She knows how to solve problems, and she`s always had a plan and followed it, and been successful.”

What I would have expected is the opposite. I would have expected him to be honest about her mental health, but of course that would put him in the spotlight for not doing enough to protect her, so I see Peters point about guilt on the part of the husband. My problem is differentiating between that sort of scenario and criminal guilt.

One sentence Westra stated bothered me:

“This is hard for communities; this is hard for our daughter, our stepson….. This is hard for everybody that’s ever known her. And will ever know her.”

If he has not done anything criminal I need to understand why he would correct his past tense language “known”. It will not be hard for anybody who “will ever know her” because they will not know anything about this (at time of quote she was obviously still missing). It was added in as a correction and he wouldn’t have done it unless he was sensitive and aware of what he had said.

He was sensitive to talking about her in the past, why? If he didn’t know she was dead which he should not have done, why would he draw the conclusion she was? Could he be that sure she had committed suicide and would he not still have hope that she was alive?

How can we be sure his language is only from guilt and not from anything else?

Buckley said...

The verb is “has known” and it’s in the present perfect tense. If he’d said “that knew her” I’d be concerned. The interviewer’s question has present perfect verbs, so it’s not surprising he reflects those verbs his in answer. I do agree, though, his “correcting” is a flag. Similarly, the interviewer asked what she “was” wearing, and im not surprised to see past tense verbs in his answer re: the shoes. There may have been nervousness about her being dead, but I don’t think he’s indicated a knowledge she is dead.

frommindtomatter said...

Thanks Buckley.

I just find the use of his language difficult to understand. I would expect:

“This is hard for everybody that knows her” I don’t understand why he would use “that’s ever known her.”

I think he corrected himself because he was aware what he said might have been construed as past tense language. It certainly made me think in that way.

It is a very interesting case and if I have made errors then I can learn from them. I want to learn. I hope Peter does some analysis on this, I know it would be of great benefit to me.

Willow said...

Does Jay Westra say in the interview or elsewhere that Kristin suffered from clinical depression?
It struck me, how Jay manages to give an impression of Kristin as un-balanced, superficial and capable of desperate deeds even though he commends (almost profusely) her solidity and other positive qualities.

The diagnosis of clinical depression and possibly newly started medication with drugs that are known to increase risk of suicide at the start-up, are hanging in the air while Jay speaks.
It's as if the fact that he specifically leaves unsaid depression, instability and self-harm, makes them louder to hear.

Jay is a professional in health care. He knows that one of the greatest sins a mortal can do in hospital staff is to elevate themself to the level doctor. Only a doctor can give a diagnose. It's second nature to him to speak about mental conditions in a roundabout way and still get the message through without violating the code of conduct.

Kristin hadn't, Jay says, seen a doctor because of the anxiety, she didn't have medication nor therapy and not a diagnosis of clinical depression.
And husband Jay didn't say it either.

Mike Dammann said...

Let's say it turns out the father had nothing to do with it. What reasons could there be for his language?

frommindtomatter said...

The only reason I can think of would be he would have known she was suicidal. He feels responsible and guilty for letting it happen and wants to avoid people pointing the finger and saying he should have done something more to prevent it happening.

I guess this behaviour would be dependent on the person. Some people would be blaming themselves for letting it happen if they honestly thought they could have done more to prevent it. I appreciate what Peter said -

“Dependent upon the length of time of acute depression, self preservation creates defensive posturing.”

After thinking about that it does make sense to me now.

The problem for me is that Westra says a lot of weird things in his statement that go beyond distancing himself from responsibility:

“She went for her run on Sunday and that was um.., that was caught on a neighbour’s camera, and so they saw her running.”

It’s like he saying or trying to prove she was still alive Sunday night. This information might have been relayed to him by Police during the investigation but for all we know he asked his neighbours himself if they had seen her and they had checked their camera for him. We don’t know. He did have 2.5 hours Monday morning before he contacted Police.

Her brother in his statements was very surprised she would do this and seemed oblivious to her having mental health problems but she may have wanted to keep it from people as things like that could affect her career etc..

I am guessing we will never know what really happened, we don’t even know the actual cause of death (suicide by what means?)

Shelley said...

Back to the Isabel case.

The neighbor heard 2 men talking where her bedroom window was as her room is directly across. Her dogs were barking like crazy which is what woke her up. She said it was around 6, 6:30. Well before Sergio claims he went to her room and the mom likely would have been awake getting ready.

The Celis family also had dogs but the parents claimed they did not bark. Unlikely.

This is where I still struggle with this guy doing it. Or at the very least alone.

So we know 2 men at least were in the yard at 6/6:30. So maybe this man and Sergio?

Mike Dammann said...

It would make sense one man being someone the dogs are so familiar with that they are completely calm.

Mike Dammann said...

This could explain quite a few things. The change from "our house" to "my house" for example. "Our house" in the context of his family's house. But when "she was abducted from my house" it could refer to distancing from the other person if indeed 2 were involved and he was one of them.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 9:31,

You are not up to date on the case, check links in comments.

The suspect has implicated the father and says there is evidence of Sergio at a pawn shop, connected to the murder weapon.
Clement's car was reportedly equipped with video and sound recording.

Remember that there could be more than one guilty party.
Clements claims to know where two other bodies are, this could be part of something larger, like child porn production, etc.

Just because Clements is involved does not mean Sergio is not.


Peter Hyatt said...

Another team of investigators analyzed the 911 call of Sergio Celis.

Deception Indicated.

Peter

Anonymous said...

The investigation report did not say that Clements said the pawn shop video connected Sergio to the murder weapon, only suggestive that the video would help explain Sergio's involvement.

Anonymous said...

The neighbor's report was discredited years ago.

Anonymous said...

The neighbor who reported she heard two men talking and the dogs barking at around 6:30 AM? How was it discredited?

Anonymous said...

The video from thesurveillance camera angled toward Isabel's window shows no one near her window. There are some minor inconsistencies in the neighbor's statement. The neighbor, when asked, clearly said she had one dog, then in another ibterview she referred to "my dogs". She states the Celis dogs stay inside, then said they are outside. Even Sergio said in an interview that his original thought about the window was not the case. He stops mid-sentence..Ultimately, many began to say the neighbor was merely attention seeking, which many always say and is just talk.

S

The surveillance video would be the only concrete indication of her discredited story. What I would add, personally, is that if I were awakened to voices outside my window and my aggressively barking dog in my room, I would not only be wide awake and peeking out my window, I would not fall back asleep.

Anonymous said...

Thanks S.

I read that Sergio went personally to check about the footage from that night, so he was aware of the camera's angle and range.

The neighbor did get a lot of exposure with her story, evidently the video does not back her up or her yard was out of range?


Anonymous said...

I'm would think that those who are viewing the video and have made the determination are using enhancements with the actual video.

I can't speak intelligently about what Sergio did regarding assisting in the search for his daughter,

Peter Hyatt said...

Here are some notes from recent investigators


They noted the following:

· The extreme distance from Isabel, his own daughter.

· Regarding the conclusion of “abduction,” consider it is not because of connection to Mexico, but rather, he is familiar or associated with illegal activities such as abductions. He speaks of it as if it is 2nd nature – callous.

· They noted the scripting in his 911 call, particularly as it related to the screen. Sergio had to have handled the screen. He had acute need to explain how his son found the screen, when it would’ve been obvious to him, when he entered the room, that the window was wide open and the screen was on the ground.

· “she’s gone” – is final, more so than the conclusion of abduction is final.

· The need to alibi is also extreme, from the “woke up” to his wife, “she had just left to work.”

· They called out the sexual abuse – they ******. *****. ******. (anger)

· The need to alibi himself, specifically at midnight – watching the Diamondbacks game and then falling asleep. The falling asleep relates back to “we woke up.” The game ended at about 9:30 that night. He could’ve Tevo (recorded) it, but he didn’t say that.

· The “wall” is extra sensitive to him. “So, I was like just on the other side of the wall from her.



This puts peer review and independent analysis over 50.

Peter

Bobcat said...

Are there statistics related to watching something on TV similar to statements of 'not seeing' things? Is the video screen being on a sort of alibi? Is it meant to infer that the subject must have been watching the (changing image, not window) screen, saying 'look here' or 'see here, not there' while omitting other physical actions that took place? The alibi of a screen appears to me in more and more statements i.e.:
Blackburn, Celis, Westra, Cass, Dunn.


Anonymous said...

Thanks Peter,

"They called out the sexual abuse – they ******. *****. ******. (anger) "

I assume you are referring to your fellow SA experts, but this part is not clear to me.

Peter Hyatt said...

I edited out how they expressed their thoughts towards pedophilia.

Peter

blauereiterin said...

I’m no expert on language, but the word little as a description of braids makes sense. Braids can be big (like taking up all or half the hair) or little (like a bunch of small ones all over the head). That adjective being included actually helps describe what the kid looks like in comparison with other 6yo girls with braids.

The description of the clothes as little has no such utility. All 6yo kids wear small sized clothes. Using little doesn’t differentiate her from other kids. That’s not even beginning to address the point made in the post - that “little” in reference to clothes by a man does often have a sexual undertone or connotation.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter,

There’s been a police interview of Christopher Clements (the man accused of killing Isabel and Maribel) releases and I’d love if you could do an analysis of it.

https://prr.pcao.pima.gov:5236/documents/Clements%20Interview%20Transcript%20-%20PCSD%20Maricopa%20County%20Jail%208-15-17%20(00626285-3xCDD05).PDF

Thanks
Maria

Anonymous said...

Clements gives himself away throughout the interview

Anonymous said...

Anon at 3:00am,

Yes I agree, as soon as they told him they had DNA from Maribels body and they wanted his DNA there and then to compare it to, he became uncooperative, argumentative, and aggressive. He knew the game was up. Do you feel Sergio has involvement in all of this?

Maria

Anonymous said...

Maybe a little at first as I simply did not like him; but not at all anymore.

Clements kept asking about the correlation between the two girls. He was dissatisfied with the detectives answer, because he knew the answer; they were found close to each other. Ultimately, he told them the girls were found close to each other. Then arrogantly trying to make a deal for information as he was telling them what they wanted to know. Then some nonsense suggesting Russian mob involvement, by saying he hangs out with Russians in Marana.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 209   Newer› Newest»