Statement Analysis of Sergio Celis 2015 and 911 Call
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Three years ago, Isabel Celis, 6, went missing. If you are new to Statement Analysis and new to this case, fasten your seatbelt. What you are about to read is going to sound strange, but as you read through this, and the father's 911 call, and then on to the Dr. Phil Show, you will see how the words this father uses in his 2015 interview make sense.
Three years ago, Isabel Celis, 6, went missing and before a single word was analyzed, behavioral analysis was in play:
The parents did not want to address the 'kidnapper' via media, nor in any other manner in spite of police setting this up for them. A few days passed and media pressure got to them, and they spoke. This is the same as going grocery shopping, having your toddler wander off, and you, the parent, not calling out after your child, but literally finishing your shopping, packing up the groceries in your car, driving home, unpacking them, having lunch, and then, when someone pressures you, pick up the phone and report your child missing.
In other words, the parents that behave this way, do not want their child found.
After pressure built up from both police, who witnessed the reluctance to help get in touch with whoever "abducted" Isabel, and the media reporting that the family is not cooperating, they decided to speak.
They did.
We then knew that Isabel was not "missing" nor would Isabel be found alive.
The firestorm began then and there.
Both behavioral and statement analysis showed guilty knowledge about what happened to Isabel. But it wasn't done uncovering information.
Then the family gave an interview on the Dr. Phil Show, and expert analysis from Kaaryn Gough confirmed what initial analysis showed: Isabel not only was not kidnapped, but never left that home alive and the mother, too, was covering. They reported their child kidnapped but on the show, they did not use the following words:
kidnap
kidnapper
ransom
payment
contact
getting Isabel back
return
safe
or anything associated or expected with a kidnapping. For those that thought that only Sergio was deceptive, this show indicated both parents for deliberately misleading police and the public.
Child Protective Services removed the father, Sergio, from the house and police released the 911 call which showed: deception indicated.
What's worse than this? The language employed by Sergio Celis was consistent with sexual homicide.
This call showed a giggling deceptive caller, scripting his language to fit the story. Here is a news story from WGUN9. It it, Sergio sticks to the script.
Isabel Celis missing three years later: Father says "Unbelievable disbelief of everything"
The YouTube links below to watch the full KGUN9 interview with Sergio and Rebecca Celis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieijOxx99l4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyMGPcJOLdg
TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - It's been exactly three years since Isabel Celis vanished from her home. Her disappearance and massive multi-agency search made national headlines.
But the coverage has waned and thousands of leads have turned up nothing. Her parents Rebecca and Sergio Celis say they will not give up looking for her.
Sergio retraced his steps the morning his daughter disappeared.
"I went into her bedroom. She wasn't in her bed. I said Isabel. I looked in here. She wasn't in the bed," said Sergio.
Note the awkward repetition. He is not outright lying. He did actually look in her bedroom.
Note "the" bed, and not "her" bed. He is working from his previous statements and not from experiential memory, but memory of what he reported earlier.
He moves through the house to his sons room, Julien and Sergio.
Next, we note he moves into present tense language.
"There's a lot of blankets on the ground. I lift up the blankets. She's not under the blankets. Came here knocked on door Isabel. Are you in the bathroom?" he said.
Note:
1. present tense language instead of past tense language
2. Note the dropped pronoun with "Came here knocked on door."
Please also note that blankets and doors are in his statements. These are often in statements where sexual abuse has taken place, and in statements where the speaker, himself, may have been a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
"Other bedroom I looked in here," he said.
Here he goes back to past tense. The changing of tense shows inconsistency and a signal that he is not speaking from experiential memory.
The last place to look before searching outside, the garage.
"I literally walked in the garage and walked all the way around because okay now this is getting strange," he said.
Note that he uses the word "literally" which suggests that other things he has reported may have been figurative or more simply put, not "literally" fulfilled. This is not the language of truth in searching for his daughter but indication that he knew she was not where he went.
Note "because" shows the need to explain why he walked "all the way around" as if any effort to find his daughter was strenuous.
Note the return, mid sentence, to present tense language. This is another indicator that he is making up this information as he goes along. This is consistent with "literally" being a signal that he has not been "literal" about his search.
A moment later, his son Sergio runs from Isabel's room to tell him.
"He says Dad, her window's wide open. Her screen is busted out."
He, again, goes present tense. Please also note that besides doors and coverings (blankets) as being part of the language of sexual abuse, windows, opening and closing, are also part of the language of sexual abuse.
"And then it all began. It all began," The nightmare as Sergio describes it.
The nightmare, if that is what he was referencing, did not begin when Isabel went missing, but when his son reported the window being "wide open."
After searching outside he made a phone call to Rebecca, who had already left for work. He had told her,
"Isa's not here. You need to get your butt home now. We can't find her anywhere. Sergio's out running around the neighborhood. I can't find her. The screen's broken out. The window's wide open. You need to get home. Did you call 911? No, I wanted to call you first."
This is why I referenced "scripting" language earlier. He is now repeating his bizarre 911 call, particularly the sensitive part where he giggled and said, "get your butt home" on tape; something that has been repeated often in media as inappropriate.
That call to his wife, he said, was the worst thing he's ever had to do.
One might think the worst thing he ever had to do was confront that his daughter was missing but to him, it was to do with his wife.
Please carefully consider this as truthful and then read further down to the 911 call where he was asked, "how tall is she?" and he answered with his wife's height.
He was very nervous about telling his wife, and in hindsight, this is yet another indication that she was aware of sexual abuse. Read the analysis below. It is very likely that CPS was aware of allegations of sexual abuse and got Sergio to move out of the home, via "Safety Planning" (agreement) but did not have enough to have a judge order him out.
This means that CPS talked with both parents about sexual abuse allegations; something serious enough to get him out of the house.
With this in mind, listen to his words here, and then 3 years earlier, in the 911 call. His directive to his wife is like "faux authority" where he tells her to "get her butt home" as if to portray himself in a position of moral authority, which, if true, highlights that his wife "had something on him" and knew something.
Remember, CPS got him to leave the house, and not her.
"And making that phone to tell her that was harder than making that 911 call. How the heck am I going to tell Becky that Isabel's not here."
To the public, this sound strange. It is much worse to think of a missing child than to just tell his wife, but if the scenario is as the analysis and the contact with CPS suggests, we can understand why the call was much worse.
Did Isabel threaten to report what had happened in that home? Did she have to be silenced to preserve the rest of the family? Consider this as a possibility as you read through the case, and listen to the references to the brothers, and the level of concern over them, far more than any concern about what Isabel, the "missing" child, might have experienced.
Then came the call to 9-1-1.
Cavazos: "Normally someone would think, I'm going to call 911 first. What happened?"
Sergio Celis: "Disbelief. I just felt like there has to be an explanation, you know. Don't panic."
Dispatcher: "911. What's your emergency?"
Sergio Celis: "I want to report a missing person. My little girl. She's 6 years old. I believe she was abducted from our house."
Here it is best to view the actual 911 call with analysis rather than what this station reported.
That calm tone during the 911 call -- and a little laugh opened a floodgate of accusatory finger pointing from the public.
Dispatcher: "Is mom there also? Sergio: She had just left to work. And I just called her and I told her to get her butt home. Laugh."
"Everyone is critiquing on how I sounded on my 911 call because I wanted to be so calm and get it all across. That they probably would have heard my speaking to Becky the way the nurses heard me ask for her. Maybe that is what they needed to hear or something. I just don't understand that."
Although his voice inflection is bizarre and difficult to ignore, Statement Analysis deals specifically with the words he employed instead.
These words indicated deception on his part, not nervousness, but deliberate desire to deceive law enforcement into thinking Isabel was kidnapped by a caller who knows that she was not kidnapped.
And he's frustrated, he said, that the accusations continue to this day. "So when you ask me, how am I today, 3 years later. Unbelievable disbelief of everything, of everything."
He said he's most angry and frustrated with Tucson Police Department's investigation. "The investigators. Everyone who's in charge of this investigation and the higher ups from them -- FBI, U.S. Marshals - everybody -- remembering that ridiculous circus and it wasn't to find my little girl."
The circus, he described, were the hundreds in law enforcement who scoured the neighborhood, the city, the county for days.
The entire effort, he said, was just for show
"If there was a purpose she should have been found within the first 24 hours. Instead of wasting three days on us. Having us down there 12 hours a piece -- separating us doing everything they possibly could to make our lives that much worse. We just lost our little girl. We haven't been victimized enough by that?"
Stirring his anger even more, "Letting suspects go. And not drilling the real people the way they drilled us."
One in particular, Rebecca Celis said, a relative she won't reveal to the public, who left town after Isabel vanished, hired a lawyer, and refused to cooperate with police.
Rebecca Celis: "I feel like he ran and what's going to keep him from running again."
Cavazos: "You don't know where he is now?"
Rebecca: "Yes, I know where he is."
What purpose is there to withhold his name since they already believe police have failed when they targeted the parents?
Both parents are angry, frustrated, but the current lead investigator in the case Tucson Police Lt. Matt Rondstat told KGUN 9 "that's understandable."
He said it's natural to lash out at police during the investigative process. They've followed every standard investigative procedure, every lead handed to them, and have interviewed everybody who may have information in this case.
A mother's love.
Freedom Park. The place where little Isa hurt herself on the bleachers, a moment that plays back over and over in her mother's mind.
It was the day before little Isa vanished. "Her coming up to me and saying that she hurt herself. Okay it's time to sit down with me for a little bit," said
A mother's love, the instinct to protect, runs deep. A bond that's been severed. Three years later, there are vivid details that, Rebecca said, won't ever fade.
"The last thing I did with Isa and everything leading up to that is very very clear. And I think because of what happened I don't think you ever forget those very fine details.
But those details, those images, are of a six-year-old girl. Rebecca imagines what her daughter would look like today using two of Isa's friends as a reference.
"Looking at the two girls makes me think she hasn't changed. Facially hasn't changed very much. Her expression hasn't changed much just because I'm comparing her to how those two girls are," she said.
And she imagines where her daughter might be. "I think she's in a house somewhere where she's not allowed to, maybe not allowed to use. She knew how to use a computer. She knew how to use a phone," she said.
She thinks about the 3 Cleveland girls held captive by Ariel Castro and found 10 years later.
Cavazos: "Do you think that might be the case here?"
Rebecca Celis: "Why not? Why couldn't it be? All I can hope for is that she's being well taken care of and that she's safe and that she's okay. Cavazos: You believe she's alive? Rebecca: Oh yeah. Yeah. I feel it in my heart."
Note she asks two questions without waiting for an answer. She can answer these questions and does not believe she needs to.
She dreams of her daughter's return one day -- a reason the Celis family won't move from their home though they want to.
Rebecca Celis: "You're asking if I want to move. Yes, I want to move. Do I want to move without Isa? No.
Sergio Celis: I don't see us leaving. No."
They'll remain for now, but they've changed anniversary events. They're no longer holding them for the public. Instead they hope people will donate funds in honor of Isabel to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The organization is also making a face progression of Isabel -- what she would look like today, to help in the search for her.
Here is the analysis of the 911 call:
Here is the entire 911 call made by Sergio Celis regarding his missing 7 year old daughter, Isabel.
Statement Analysis is in bold type. Emphasis by underlining, italics and color added. Please note that the color blue is given for the highest level of sensitivity.
Dispatcher:911 what's your emergency?
Sergio Celis: I want to report a missing person, my little girl who's six years old, I believe she was abducted from our house.
Please note that additional or extra words give us additional information. The added word "want" actually reduces commitment.
Please note that he is reporting a missing "person"; it is not expected that a father would refer to his child as a "person"
Note the order:
1. He wants to report a missing person
2. "My little girl"
3. He "believes" she was "abducted" from "our" house. That she may have been abducted is third.
When someone calls their home "our" house, it shows a desire to share ownership. This is often seen in divorces, or can enter the language of those who rent a room in the home, or live with others. That he feels a need to share the home while reporting a child missing should not be missed. We find that the pronouns "we" and "our" come from parents who wish to share guilt (Dillingham) especially since parenting a child is a highly personal ("I" and "my") relationship.
Note the assertion of abduction is only "believed" which is weak. If he believes that she has been abducted, he should have a reason for his belief. An abduction is conclusionary and does not hold the same meaning as "kidnapped" where ransom and contact may be expected. That a father of a missing child could jump to this conclusion should alert investigators to withheld information.
Dispatcher: What's the address?
Sergio: 57 or 5602 E. 12th Street.
Dispatcher: Okay. Stay on the line for Tucson Police.
Sergio: I will.
Dispatcher: Tucson Police Department, Gabhart
Sergio: Hello, I need to report a uh, missing child. I believe she was abducted from my house.
Please note that his call to the police who will be investigating the "abduction" begins with the greeting, "Hello."
People in a hurry to report an emergency may not think to be polite, unless there is a reason to 'befriend' the operator.
There may be a psychological reason for this: some guilty parents will seek to make friends or be at peace with those who might later suspect them. This is why guilty parents will often "thank" police for their work in searching for the missing child, rather than show impatience and frustration. They are, literally, "thankful" for the police failure to locate the "missing" child. This shows itself early in an investigation, and then turns to rage (or disappears) as time passes and the public is aware that the police now suspect the same parents who once thanked them.
This should be seen as a red flag for guilty caller, and an attempt to portray him as "friendly" with the police. Urgency on the part of the innocent parent is expected; not a casual greeting.
Please note the change of language. When language changes, it should reflect a change in reality. If not, it may be an indication of deception as the subject does not speak from memory and is not keeping track of his words:
"missing person" and "my little girl" and "our house" is now:
"missing child" from "my" house.
There does not appear to be any justification for the change in the context, therefore, it may be that it is not coming from experiential memory.
Note how he refers to Isaabel:
To him, Isabel is not "Isabel" but a "person" and a "little girl" and a "child."
Person: gender neutral
"little girl" specific gender
"child" is often used when at risk. While "missing" she is a "person" (non specific) and "child"
Dispatcher: Okay. How old?
Sergio: Six years old.
Dispatcher: Okay is it your daughter or?
Sergio: Yes
Dispatcher: Why do you think she abducted?
That the subject said he thought his daughter was "abducted" was not expected by the 911 operator. An "abduction" is a conclusion, therefore, the subject must have good reason to say what he did, especially given a father's instincts.
Since he has reported his daughter abducted, he now is asked why he thinks this. It should be easy enough to explain, since, after all, he reported it as such:
Sergio: I have no idea. We woke up this morning and went to go get her up, start her baseball game and she's gone. I woke up my, my sons, I, we looked everywhere in the house and my oldest son noticed her window was wide open and the screen was laying the backyard. We've looked all around the house, my son…
Deception indicated
1. Please note that "I have no idea" is not expected. He asserted what he thought but now claims to have "no idea" what caused him to say so? This is not credible. That she is "missing" would show an "idea" why. A child is missing and a parent says that they have "no idea"? We saw the same deception from Justin DiPietro, father of Ayla Reynolds, who's blood was found in his basement.
2. Please note that he reports that "we" woke up; not "I" woke up. This is an indication of deception. Note that he does not say who the "we" are here. Pronouns are instinctive and guilty people seek to share responsibility with the word "we", no different than a guilty teenager runs away from commitment in hopes of sharing guilt with the word "we"(Dillingham)
3. Note the highest level of sensitivity is found in two specific parts of language:
A. "Left" (departed) when used as an unnecessary connecting verb
B. Reason Why: "to, therefore, so, since, because..." and so on. This means that the subject, when reporting what happened, has a need to explain why he did something.
These two parts of language are given the highest level of sensitivity in Analysis, and are color coded with blue to highlight specific areas of extreme sensitivity. When more than one is found, we know we are at a highly sensitive
He tells the reason why he went to get Isabel, of whom he avoids using her name (distancing language)
4. Pronouns are well practiced by humans since the earliest days of speech and are completely reliable. When someone cannot keep track of pronouns, deception is present.
Note: "I, we looked everywhere"indicates deception.
Dispatcher: Okay, hang on.
Sergio:…are running, yeah, my sons are running around the house looking for her.
This should not have been needed to be said and is an attempt to portray the family as united and searching. There is no need for him to say that the house has been searched unless...
Unless he has a need to persuade police that they searched the house. Who would not search the house? This was expected before calling 911.
Dispatcher: the screen was on the ground outside?
Sergio: Yes
His daughter was not in her bed, and the screen was on the ground outside, yet he had "no idea" why he thought she was abducted? This does not make sense, unless it is a false report: as a false report, that is, not coming from experiential memory, it makes sense.
Dispatcher: What's her address?
Sergio: 5602 E. 12th Street.
Dispatcher: What's your name sir?
Sergio: My name is Sergio, S-E-R-G-I-O, middle initial D, last name is C-E-L-I-S,
Dispatcher: I-S as in Sam?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay, what's her name?
Sergio: Isabel, I-S-B-E-L, uh, I-S-A-B-E-L, M as in man is the middle initial
Here is when her name enters his language, but only in response to a direct question.
Dispatcher: Okay, same last name?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay what's her actual birth date?
Sergio: Is (removed by TPD), of uh, (removed by TPD). I'm sorry. (removed by TPD) and she's going to seven this year, so uh, (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. Is mom there also?
This is a yes or no question. Anything beyond "yes" or "no" is sensitive.
Sergio: Uh, she had just left for work, I just called her and I told her to get her butt home. (chuckles)
Here he established his wife's alibi. Whatever happened to Isabel, instead of answering "yes or no" there was a need to explain that it happened while his wife was not home.
If he had "no idea" what happened to her, how is it that she had "just" left for work?
Please note the word "told."
The word "told" is used in authoritative sentences. "My boss said to be at work at 9" is one way of saying it, while, "My boss told me..." is stronger. Here, he portrays the sentence as if he had to exercise authority to "tell" her or "instruct" her to come home.
Is this reasonable?
No.
A mother of a missing 6 year old would not have to be "told" to come home from work: she would leave immediately. Here, the subject wants us to believe that he had to impose authority over her, as indicated by the word "told" in his language.
Next, this is buttressed by his wording "get your butt home."
By his language: He is portraying her reluctance to come home. Is this how he wanted it? Is this how Becky wanted it?
Please note that he is heard chuckling on the call made to report his missing child.
In statement analysis we say that we do not analyze the person, but the words, and that people who analyze voice inflection are often wrong as often as they are right. But it is here that it is so ridiculous that it sounds cartoon like and is impossible to ignore:
He laughed while reporting his daughter missing, while he is being deceptive. His nervousness is likely due to the deception and need to portray himself as authoritative and helpful.
Dispatcher: Okay, mother.
Sergio: But she was…
Dispatcher: What kind of vehicle is she going to be en route back in?
Sergio: Uh, in our Lexus RX300, and it's red.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio: And she's coming from TMC, so she should just be coming straight down Craycroft.
Dispatcher: Okay. How tall is she?
Sergio: She is five two.
This indicates where his mind is: he is concentrating on "pleasing" the operator and not about his missing daughter.
His language reveals that Isabel is not a priority. He thought of his wife in the "get your butt home" comment and his mind is still on his wife, not daughter, who, if truly "missing" or "abducted" would be all he cared about. This is a parental instinct to care only for the missing child. He is more concerned with image and alibi than he is with his missing daughter.
Dispatcher: No the, I'm sorry, you're daughter
Sergio: Oh my daughter. Um…forty inches. Thirty, yeah 36 to 40 inches.
If your child was missing, would a 911 operator need to redirect your attention back to your daughter? This is the reason in an interview, we do not "redirect" anything: we listen.
Dispatcher: Okay. Is she black, white, or Hispanic?
Sergio: She's a fair skinned Hispanic with uh, clear eyes and light brown hair.
What color are "clear" eyes?
Dispatcher: And what do you mean by clear eyes? Like…
Sergio: Uh, well they're a little bit green…
Dispatcher: Are they hazel or?
Sergio:…green, green, hazel, sure.
Dispatcher: Hazel, okay. And you said she's about 40 inches tall.
Sergio: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Do you remember what she was wearing last night when you saw her?
The expectation is "yes" followed by what she was wearing. It is a yes or no question, but it has the expectation of commentary for the purpose of helping locate her. His answer reveals that he saw her two times.
Please note this.
In Sergio Celis' answer, he dilineates different times he saw what she was wearing. He should simply report what pajamas the six year old had on. This is where extra words give away the information needed:
Sergio: Uh, before she went to bed I believe she was wearing little navy blue shorts and, and a pink uh, a pink like little uh, tank top type of a shirt.
He reports what she wore, not to bed, but "before she went to bed" indicating that this may not be what she was wearing when she went to bed, or when she went missing.
Also note that besides not reporting what pajamas she had on, he describes her shirt and shorts as "little":
She is six years old.
Not only does she have on "little shorts" and a "tank top" but a "little tank top" type of shirt. Since she is six years old, we would expect that her shorts would not be large. That he uses this language is concerning and the analyst should be on the alert for possible signals of sexual abuse, including lights, doors, windows, water, etc.
The dispatcher reflects back the language, without the additional and "unimportant" information of the size of the clothing:
Dispatcher: Pink tank top? Okay. Navy blue shorts. Has she ever tried to sneak out of a window or anything?
Sergio: Oh no.
Dispatcher: Have you guys…
Sergio: Hu-uh
Dispatcher: …been having any weird phone calls, anything like that, somebody hanging around?
Sergio: No. We got home late from uh, my son's baseball game.
Note that "we got home" is plural, with "my" son being singular. This is expected with biological parents. Yet, when speaking of the missing child, she is "our" daughter. This is different.
"Our" is the language of 'sharing', that is:
step parenting,
foster parenting,
adoption, or something related to having someone else involved in the child's life other than the biological parents.
This is, therefore, sometimes in the language of biological parents who have discussed divorce.
It is also found in the language of biological parents where there is a need to share guilt.
Dispatcher: Uh-hm
Sergio: You know, about 10:30 last night. (clears throat) Everyone took their showers and they all went to bed. I even was in the living room watching uh, the Diamondbacks game at midnight.
In sexual abuse cases, we find words such as "door", "window" and "blanket" (coverings) as well as "lights" and references to water, in any form.
"Water", in particular, enters the language of sexual homicides. That he felt the need to mention "showers" should cause investigators to explore the possibility of sexual abuse in the caller's history, including checking with CPS, school teachers, and the pediatrician.
When someone reports what happened, they cannot say everything, therefore, they edit out what they do not feel is important and keep in what they feel is needed. Next, they must choose which words to use, and what order to put them in.
All of this happens in less than a millisecond in time.
Dispatcher: Uh-hm.
Sergio: And I feel asleep and I never heard anything weird. So I was like just on the…
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…other side of the wall from her.
Dispatcher: How, how many siblings does she have?
Sergio: Two.
Dispatcher: Okay, and those are brothers you said?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: How old are they?
Sergio: 14 and 10.
Dispatcher: And you said they're out looking or they were looking all over the house?
Sergio: Oh no, they, they just, they just went right now, my oldest son, the 14 year old, he went running around just to make sure um, but I, she's nowhere…
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…to be seen…
Dispatcher: Outside or inside?
Sergio: He's outside our property wall.
Dispatcher: Okay. And where is the ten year old?
Sergio: He's in the garage. He's just out in the garage just waiting for…
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…my wife.
Dispatcher: Okay and what's mom's name?
Sergio: Becky.
Dispatcher: Okay. And what's your birth date sir?
Sergio: (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. And what's mom's?
Sergio: Uh, (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. Any you're both natural parents of the child?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay. So no, no step-parents, any, any problems with any grandparents?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. So you're not having any family issues, anything like that?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. And you haven't noticed anybody hanging out in front of your house?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. You're son that's 14, what's his name?
Sergio: (inaudible yelling in background) Uh, I'm sorry, my wife just walked in and, and she's speaking to somebody. I don't know if she's speaking to the police also. She might have been calling on her way. You asked me about my son, what did you ask me?
In a 911 calls of domestic homicide, the words "I'm sorry" entering for any reason, were flagged for guilt. It was found in a number of guilty callers of domestic homicides. It is something that is on the mind of the guilty and it "leaks" out in the words, for whatever reason. (Gough)
Dispatcher: Yeah the, the 14 year old that's out looking for her?
Sergio: Yes. What about him?
Dispatcher: Um, well hang on a second. Okay, actually I think one of your sons is trying to call. Um, I'm sorry, what was your 14 year old's name?
Sergio: (Taken out by Tucson News Now)
Sergio: My wife just got home and she's kind of hysterical and freaking out, so.
Dispatcher: I, okay. Tell her we are on the way, we've got a…
Sergio: Okay.
Dispatcher:…bunch of officers on the way, I want you guys to stay there in the house.
Sergio: We will.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:Bu-bye
Analysis conclusion:
This is a deceptive call regarding an "abduction" that did not take place, made by a subject with willful and guilty knowledge. Specifically, the caller is deceptive about what happened to Isabel Celis, of whom he distances himself, and is deceptive about his own actions.
It is likely that Isabel Celis has been a victim of sexual abuse and is not alive.
By Peter Hyatt.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/statement-analysis-of-sergio-celis-2015.html?m=1
