Isabel Celis Abduction BREAKING NEWS: Docs Show Blood In Bedroom Police Eye Family AND Neighbor
*LIVE TONIGHT On THE DANA PRETZER SHOW Blink Discusses The Isabel Celis Case*
After 550 plus pages of what amounts to discovery in a likely criminal case, Friday afternoon yielded a window to the world of the investigation of missing 6 year old Isabel Mercedes Celis.
Isa, according to the document release consisting of 6 packets of PDF files of police incident and timesheet reports was last seen by her Father who kissed her goodnight and dimmed her bedroom light after showering and braiding of her hair by her Mother Becky in anticipation of her baseball game the next morning with the Diamondbacks.
Isabel’s baseball Jersey number is #4.
The “goodnight kiss” was the first time the public has heard the actual version in his words containing the account that he was the last person to see Isabel before her disappearance as well as confirm that her window was closed when he closed the door.
Certainly not unexpected to hear a loving father’s tender goodnight detail to his baby girl, but most unexpected was the revelation that on Isabel’s bedroom floor was an obvious area of blood.
While it has not been disclosed whose blood was located on the floor of the southeast middle bedroom located on E 12th St, Sergio and Becky Celis were required to provide blood samples under a warrant obtained a few days later.
The Usual Suspects- FAMILY
It is clear from the released reports that a significant amount of time and effort has been spent on investigation of Sergio Celis and Becky’s brothers Bob Rodriguez and Justin Mastromarino as previously reported on www.blinkoncrime.com Mastromarino’s own niece Chelsea and her fiancée Danny Cline told a shoe salesperson and subsequently investigators that they believe he is a drug dealer and owes someone a great deal of money and Isa was taken for some purpose to satisfy that debt.
A truck owned by Bob Rodriguez was removed by warrant from in front of the Celis home without warning and a towel which tested negative for blood but reacted to luminol was taken into evidence as well as a pocket knife from its contents.
Blood evidence was found in the driver’s seat of the Toyota Corolla mostly driven by Sergio Celis and the red inoperable Acura as well as a stained shower curtain and white hat. Keeping in mind, Tucson PD released some documents that are heavily redacted as they are required via a freedom of information act request, by any standard; the completeness of the response teams and first responders to the scene and the surroundings was swift and MASSIVE.
Exactly one week earlier on April 13th, Sergio Celis received several criminal citations to include dogs running at large, without proper vaccinations and licenses. Celis pled not guilty during an arraignment on April 26th and is due back in court on June 4th.
At the risk of inserting a glib remark in the middle of such a macabre subject matter- Who let The Dogs Out? Who, Who Who?
Who prompted the report to Tucson City Police in the first place? Was someone attempting to have the animals removed from the residence a week earlier?
Do all the dogs belong to the Celis’s or are they housing them for a family member who now lives in an apartment and cannot keep a pet?
Perhaps this is an indication that what looks to be a fortified and nearly impenetrable without detection abode is, well, not so much. In a video of Isabel singing and dancing to an Abba song (undated but presumed recent) it is clear that the living room window, which shares the same outside wall as the window next to it separated by the interior wall Sergio references in his 911 call, is clearly open.
Celis LR Open BOC
On May 11, citing a previous CPS involvement in December of 2011 and “to provide time and distance” between Sergio and his two sons, Sergio Celis voluntarily agreed to a no contact order after a CPS meeting which was instigated by the detectives working on Isabel’s case- due to “information they learned in the course of the investigation” into Isabel’s disappearance.
What prompted the concerns exactly has not been made public and the order remains in effect. Becky Celis and Sergio’s sister refuted any allegations that Mr. Celis was anything but a model dog owner, Father and Husband at a public vigil for Isabel.
No doubt Sergio Celis’s use of the word abducted and his inappropriate lack of hysteria during the 911 call has made him a defacto suspect if only in the minds, thoughts… and blogs of those following Isabel’s case.
It is not the only oddity. During his first interview at the scene with police, Sergio states he is aware of the registered sex offender down the street, he knows him, and he does not believe him to be involved.
Is that a natural response of a parent who has knowledge of the sex offender status of a neighbor when he has just learned his child is missing?
That said, in the interviews of Sergio Celis’s employers who have known him for several years, he was found to be an exemplary employee, model husband and family man whose advice one dental surgeon sought often for his own personal situation.
It is standard protocol for detectives to conduct a parallel investigation of the victims family, in this case where a 6 year old child seemingly disappears from the window of her bedroom sometime between midnight and 6:30AM, with three dogs on the premises, a stranger abduction within the walls of what looks like a mini Alamo replica defies statistics and logic.
Or Does it?
Neighborly Concern
Matching footprints in the soft dirt around a green electric box along the south wall of the Celis home, on the top of the electric box and on a gas meter box – all along on the southeast perimeter of the wall leading to the alley ( S. Jefferson and E. Cooper) were found by a first response mobile team member and described as “wolverine” pattern as opposed to standard police issue work boots.
Alicia Sturdevant, the infamous neighbor lady who heard male voices outside Isabel’s window as well as barking dogs at 6:28 AM the morning of her disappearance, gave that account in her first interview adding to her credibility of a fresh witness account. Someone posting from another neighbor’s face book account belonging to a Chris Pike, an adult child sibling to a playmate of the Celis children seems to think Ms. Sturtevant’s account is untrue, but has not specified why.
By approximately 8:30AM the morning of Saturday April 21, Tucson Police Department has been on scene for several minutes, has completed initial interviews with the family, incident command has been established and officers begin the immediate knock and talk canvases in the hopes of finding Isabel, or information useful to locating her.
They begin next door and proceed door to door, upon reaching the home of Michael Dimitriov, who informs the officer that he is a RSO, one officer is requested to wait there for a detective interview, and requests to search the home and cars.
At approximately 8:40 Officer Bustamonte is greeted at the door by Alicia Gregory. She states she and her boyfriend went to bed at midnight but heard nothing unusual. According to the officer’s notes, he only speaks to Alicia, in fact, he spells her boyfriend’s name phonetically as he heard her say it: Nathan McDonell.
Mr. Nathan McDonald is not at the residence.
Officer Robinson is then directed to go to Freedom Park to continue search efforts for Isabel, as her team was playing the baseball game scheduled for that morning in her absence. Upon arrival, it was learned that only Isabel’s coach had been informed that she was missing during an earlier call from Sergio Celis.
As Robinson is circling back to receive further assignments in continuing efforts to find Isa, he is tasked with keeping track of vehicles leaving the immediate neighborhood of 12th and Van Buren and notes a green Jetta GLS parked to the East of Craycroft on E. 14th St. After running it’s plates to learn it is registered to a Nathan Patrick McDonald, resident of E. 12th St ., the officer informs Sgt. Dana, incident commander. A redacted portion of the conversation appears in the report.
This occurs at 10:15AM. Between 10:15 and 10:35, the officer observes McDonald emerge from the South end of the Wilshire Park field, carrying a large maglite. McDonald crosses through the middle of the field and when he reaches his vehicle, the officer approaches and McDonald confirms that the green Jetta is his vehicle. He tells him he had heard about the missing girl and was out searching tunnels and washes to the north and south where he found nothing.
McDonald “abruptly” informs the officer he must leave to go home to EAT BREAKFAST and leaves the area in his vehicle. BASTA informs ALL radio contact assigned of his exchange with the subject and a call to other officers on duty with orders to record all vehicles, including taking images of all vehicles currently parked on E. 12th st .
By 10:45AM all are instructed to stop, log plate and driver info and request consent search every vehicle coming in or out of the area.
Chris Lutzelberger, a resident of S. Essex St who likely observed the exchange between McDonald and the officer, asked him what all the police presence in the neighborhood was about.
Lutzelberger informed Robinson him that a man matching McDonald’s description was sitting on an electrical box located behind his residence earlier that morning from approximately 9AM-9:30Am at which time he told the individual to leave.
By 11AM, as security was requested by another officer at 11:23AM, a wash no more than 50 yards from where McDonald entered the south end of the park yielded a sheet, bed skirt, and a bag of clothes that were processed at the scene and taken into evidence.
A warrant was secured hours later at the McDonald/Gregory home on E. 12th St. Taken into evidence was a shoeprint on landscaping “fabric” from the backyard. Shoeprints were now collected on 3 other surface areas.
Part II publishes Monday June 4
Related Posts
Related Posts:
500 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Did Alicia G. tell the Police about the boy ringing the door bell, and did she tell them that Mr. McDonald was out searching for Isabel? She should have known these things right? I mean I would wake up my significant other and let he/she know about the missing girl and that I was going to help search…wouldn’t most people?
@Nathan,
I respect you for searching for Isabel and for posting here as well. It can not be easy to be in your position. I personally in no way have any reason to believe you did anything wrong. That is up to people who will eventually solve this case and have evidence that is directly tied to the individual(s) that did this. You should be glad that Blink verified who you are as you would in no way want someone else to claim they are you by posting using your name. Unfortunately you have been placed in the public eye, not by Blink, but by public information made available. I will respectfully remember your comments made here and I wish you well. Isabel needs to be found, that is why I am here
@ Nathan McDonald
Nathan, Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and post
what you feel comfortable posting.
The most important issue here is Isa, and I believe that any information you feel comfortable sharing will only aid in bringing her home.
I do have a question for you , if you don’t mind,
Have the TPD asked you not to discuss the case? Or anything you may have discussed with them?
TIA
I’m sure this has been asked before,but how long has Isa lived in this house? If it is a rental,there is no telling how long blood traces have been in the room. Is there a way to tell the age of a blood stain?
Someone is stealing children. This has been going on for a very long time,but we now can communicate with the speed of light,not trudge from village to village.
Amy’s sister:
http://az.gov/app/sows/SowsOffenders.xhtml?sowsOffendersId=042917&orderS=name+asc&orderD=name+asc&cid=601038
@ blink
Paraphrasing is unacceptable. You put words in my mouth. In something so important as this, everything that comes out of your mouth must be undeniably true and provable. This is my entire point. If you are going to report fact, report fact. And you simply don’t have alot of facts at your disposal.
The one detail that I have offered you about that morning, you got wrong and misreported. That is not confidence building. I won’t offer any more, other than to say that what I’ve said is true. I was woken up by a brother of Isabel Celis ringing my doorbell. I left my house shortly after.
“I note that you do not deny it. I am not suggesting that is anything nefarious, btw.”
I have pointed out things that you reported that are inaccurate. I note that you didn’t mention an inside source when initially making these statements, only after I pointed out they are not consistent with an report. I am not suggesting that is anything nefarious, btw.
See how that works?
You should as well note then that I haven’t offered any details and have repeatedly mentioned that I think it would be irresponsible to do so.
What I’m saying is that my lack of denial is meaningless.
To whom? If you object to inaccuracy from some unavailable source- then are you seriously making me wrong for what I do not know and HAVE NOT reported?? Are you suggesting I am subliminally or telepathically doing so in some sort of code? Btw, reasonable and intelligent folks do not subscribe to the I know, but you can’t know, although I want you to believe something else so just
Again, Blink, this is not an interview, but solely a request on my part for you to stop what you’re doing. If you are working with more than the documents released to police, it does not show. You are putting together a timeline with almost no information to go on. You are missing basic information, information that the police have. If they want you to have it, they’ll give it to you.
Again, I made no claim that there is information I have that is also only known to LE, again, this is coverage to date, taken from publicly available documents that were RELEASED, THAT CONTAIN THE INFORMATION HEREIN.
I didn’t deny that it was Sergio Jr, I didn’t confirm. You continue to attempt to draw details from me. Clearly, you and I don’t share the same concern of protecting the police investigation. I didn’t deny or confirm that the man on the box was me or wasn’t me. Clearly, you and I don’t share the same concern of protecting the police investigation.
Really- you feel the fact that a witness, who is on record asking you to leave from being perched on his electrical box, the exchange of which was released publicly, is protecting an investigation?
It’s moot now on my part. I can see that you are resolved to continue on, and won’t be reasoned with.
If you are going to report about me on that day, get it right, get your time line down, then tell the whole story. Again, I think you are being irresponsible.
If you are going to ask to correct me, be prepared to do so via verified information, otherwise, we are going by what we read, and what was released in good faith, and you can cry wolf all you like.
Where did I walk that day?
What did I report? Anyone at all close to the investigation would know that the report of “where he found nothing” is incomplete. I found several things that I reported law enforcement immediately, including Officer Robinson.
How many officers did I approach?
Who did I talk to?
Why was my house searched?
These answers are not mysteries. There are simple answers. The police have them. If they want you to have them, they will give them to you. Until then, I won’t.
I thought so. I have been at this a while Mr. McDonald.
The paraphrasing was addressing your comment about the difference of repeatedly vs. frantic, which had not yet posted. I followed up with clarification questions so I COULD IDENTIFY FACTS AS YOU ARE REQUESTING. I will trust the good readers here to decide if that is worthy of your soapbox.
You said:
This is my entire point. If you are going to report fact, report fact.
###
How much more could I be doing to insure that based on your assertions if you clearly only wish to discuss the parts of your “involvement” you want people to know, or should I say, “believe”.
On a side note, I advise you not to go on my friend Nancy’s show, if this was your response to her she would have you for dinner with a nice chianti.
What I will tell you is that attempting to control events, and ultimately public perception is not served by double speak. You want to set the record straight, but when you are asked about the gaps in your accounts you are “protecting the investigation”. There is not a reader on here that is not
Thank you, Moxiemom.
The shoe print: I doubt LE would bother taking into evidence a shoeprint from the McDonald home unless it was similar to the shoeprints found at the Celis home.
Mr McDonald, you’re an intelligent guy and what you’re going through can’t feel good. We Blink readers get so frustrated when an investigation takes years or is never prosecuted but we also know that it’s most important that the right person be sitting in the defendant chair when it does go to trial. Most of us know how to be objective when faced with facts and evidence in these cases.
That said, and I respect your right to not give details, you haven’t really stated anything that opposes what was written in Blink’s piece. Regarding the Taurus, if you’re driving it back and forth to work then I don’t see how driving it a few blocks will do it any further harm. In my mind it would be the other way around… drive the well running car to work and use the one about to go caput for the short distances until you’re able to trade it in.
I will withold judgement against you personally but will continue to consider all the facts of the case.
TPD has not asked me to not share. I am a critical thinker. TPD has been very precise in what they’ve released to the media. My neighbors have been on the news, the news have contacted me. I feel that in an ongoing investigation, the rest of us should follow the lead of the police. So far, that lead is to be sparing with details. I’ve talked to no one and granted no interviews. I only spoke up now because I read people saying bad things about me.
Alicia and I sat on our front porch in disbelief after the Celis boy left. Then we had conversations with other people. Then I went in the house and looked around my backyard. Then I looked at Alicia and she looked at me and I thought, I should go look for her. Alicia agreed. Others were looking as well, I was not the only person walking around that day looking for Isabel.
Look, there is just simply so much you people don’t know. But that doesn’t seem to stop some of you from filling in the blanks with supposition and insinuation.
None of this is surprising. At the end of that very long day, when the police were apologizing to me for their actions that day, and thanking me for my cooperation and I was telling them I’d consent to anything they asked because I have nothing to hide, I knew right then and there that this would be something I’d never get out from under until they found that little girl. Not from the police, they are easy to get out from under because I did nothing wrong and they proved it quickly.
But from the public. Guesswork and publications like this website are proving me right. So,congratulations.
While I thank the contributors for their reasonable responses, there are just as many unreasonable responses. And those sit squarely on the shoulders of Blink, as she’s giving them the forum. As well, this article and line of discussion has now spread to other websites. That sits squarely on the shoulders of Blink.
Yes, the police put me in the public eye. They started that fire. They have taken steps (of which I am intimately aware) to keep my name out of the media and remove video of me from media reports because, and I quote “You are charged with no crime and are a suspect in no investigation.”
So they’ve attempted to control that fire somewhat. But Blink is throwing gas on it, and that is her responsibility. I’ve attempted to reason with her, but I can see that isn’t going well. She feels she’s in the right and that she has the right to throw caution to wind and associate an innocent man with a terrible crime based on very little information.
Blink, again, you are probably a nice lady. But you are simply being irresponsible.
Thanks moxiemom. I hadn’t seen the map in relation to this offender (i know i’m slacking off here :/ but…)
In an attempt to clarify where tier 3 sex offenders can live, I understand the regulations to read one-half mile from schools, churches, daycares–public or private. Wrong. The perimeter is 1,000 feet.
This applies to tier 3 sex offenders and those who have been convicted of crime under specific statutes against children. If the offender is already living in proximity to a newly formed school, etc, they are grandfathered in.
A football field is 360 feet long–120 yards–including the end zones. It appears that the tier 3 sex offender living on E. 12th St. meets the requirements of residency.
His conviction was Attempted Sex Abuse/Rape. I’m not sure how Sergio could so immediately say he would not suspect a violent sex offender.
Without knowing the particulars of the Sergio’s relationship with this man, and without knowing the details of the crime, I tend to err on the side of caution and, excuse me here, have NOTHING to do with criminals of any kind.
forgot the link
http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Sex_Offender/Laws/
I just have to say that out of all the sites out there that discuss cases, this one is one of the best. It’s mostly done in a respectable manner, with people who appear to be logical, curtious, and respectful. I guess I am torn as to what is right and what is wrong discussing a case. If information is public, then is it wrong to talk about it and question it? I don’t think so. Is it wrong to form any opinion on what you feel is going on based on the info at hand? No. Is it wrong to accuse someone of something based on nothing or to slander someone etc.? Yes. But we are not doing that here. We are legitimately taking facts and breaking them down trying to do one thing…figure out what happened to Isabel. I don’t think that there is anything illegal about that. Do we stop this site because we talk about people involved in a case? That isn’t right either. THis case,as well as many others interests me, but more than anything I want Isabel found. Talking about people that have been made public record and discussing what they did on certain days, it’s all based on facts. I think Blink does a tremendous job in breaking down a case, it must take so much effort and many hours to go over all of the info she gets. For her to give it to us in such a complete and thorough manner and to allow us to come here and discuss it rationally is wonderful and it is our right to do so. My opinion obviously.
Blink, it occurs to me that you don’t know what I am asking of you because I haven’t made it clear.
I want you to withdraw your posted article. I’d ask even that if you are going to leave your posted article, remove my name from it and remove all mention of me from your website including the comments section. I don’t think you can do that from the interview you posted on the podcast, so I am asking you to remove that interview, and to contact the publisher of the podcast and remove it. Or at least remove any mention of me from it.
I think these are very reasonable requests.
I thank you in advance for your cooperation and efforts.
Mr. McDonald- you voluntarily came here, and you posted your opinions, and from your alleged perspective, ADDED information not publicly available.
All the information with the exception of a NOTED unamed source, which I am certainly entitled to, as you are entitled to discount, was based on publicly released documents regarding YOU, and OTHERS.
Your request to censor my right as a journalist is FAR from reasonable, and frankly, odd, given that if you were to do a simple search, you would find that there are MANY forums that began discussing you and this information publicly, days before I published a piece, again, based on public documentation.
Have you contacted them? Do you cite them here?
I allowed you, at your request, to correct any “misinformation” that you were willing to certify as fact.
You declined. More than once. There is nothing more I can do than allow you to say what you feel needs correcting, and if it is able to be verified through Tucson Police Department or another source, I am more than happy to do so. You feel people have misjudged you, but you yourself have given them their constitutional right to do so. Both by interjecting yourself into a criminal investigation ( and again, I say, I have allowed your words to be heard about the status of that, without verification to date and should be considered accordingly) and by posting here.
You have offered yourself as a source here. My guess is by now you are regretting that, I have written this piece in good faith, based on documented released by the investigative agency responsible for Isabel Celis’s case and made no allegations against you or your character as fact.
I am not remotely intimidated by you, or anyone you send to post here on your behalf. But I will tell you, this back and forth is a complete waste of both of our time. You were investigated as a result of a criminal matter. Your home and cars were searched based on probable cause, and you are the one adding elements to same, which would of course then be subject to further scrutiny.
Lastly, many of your neighbors have spoken to the press, and have been very open, so your assertions that you have some sort of block party pact are ridiculous, and aren’t you the only home on the street besides the Celis residence that had a search warrant executed with evidence removed?
B
To Mr Nathan McDonald
You wrote;
Hahaha. You people.
I woke up and left my house. I walked a good amount. I was wearing a tank top for most of it and ended up with a sunburn. I was hot, I hadn’t eaten anything, I had no water, and I’d been out for probably 2 hours at that point. Officer Robinson did not approach me. I saw him, approached (he was not the only law enforcement I encountered that morning). I gave him the same report I’d given others, then I told him I was going to have breakfast. I was hungry and tired.
I can see how a man who just walked several miles in the heat on an empty stomach needing breakfast can seem super suspicious. I hope this puts some of that to rest.
___ Sir, yes this does put a lot of the questions to rest. Thank you for clearing up what you can.
Sir, I hope you understand that because of the info released in the docs – concerning your whereabouts, actions and the warrant, along with the wording of “abruptly” left (to eat breakfast)- you were a concern to LE and, therefore rightly or wrongly- the public reading those docs works it way through the same concerns-
As many here stated – all of this could have easily been a case of you, a concerned citizen, with the best of intentions to help find Isabel- inadvertently becoming a focus of the investigation, sadly using up time energy and resources…
It seems that this is the case as you wrote:
I am not here to offer details of my life. I’ve done that, with the police. I answered their questions because the sooner ruled me out, the sooner they can move on to finding Isabel. That is the attitude of everyone on our street.
–
Sir, Your neighbors, your street, feel just as we do here at BOC- the sooner police can rule out persons of interest the faster they can move on to finding Isabel and the real perpetrators.
Sir you yourself understand that you inadvertently became a focus of the investigation in your efforts to help, you most assuredly understand that the docs released show this, but unfortunately do not follow up with- BTW he has been cleared…
It is not this article or the contributors here asking questions and voicing concerns that have made you a focus of this investigation- you sadly were a focus.
Now because of your willingness to set the record straight all can read your words and thoughts for themselves, so some good came from the release of the docs and this article.
I am so sorry that your willingness to hear and act on Isas brothers pleas for aid in finding his little sister led to you becoming a focus, especially since you went out so selflessly unprepared, underdressed, without water and food.
I am so sorry that you were unable to find her, despite your best efforts, and I am sorry that those efforts lead to you becoming a focus in this investigation, as shown through the released documents.
Thank you for coming here to set the record straight and although I agree that “The internet is an uncaged beast.” It can also be used to clear up concerns and questions and help to find a lost child-
I too hope little Isabel will be returned safely to her family soon- and I hope you and your street will be there to greet her.
Wishing you
Peace
AJMO
Blink, there are two Wilshire Drives. Your marker is near the intersection of East North Wilshire and Essex.
The report I’ve read states “I responded to the area of Downing Lane and Wilshire Drive” “Officer Tapia and Officer Gradillas advised me to secure potential evidence found in a wash near Downing Lane and Wilshire Drive. The evidence was a bed sheet and a bed skirt. Both officers also found a plastic bag that appears to have contained clothing articles.”
I see no specification of either East NORTH Wilshire or East SOUTH Wilshir, and no mention of Essex.
Is this an inaccuracy on your part? Or is this due to another source from the pdf files released? Or is there another pdf that states the bedding was found at the intersection of East NORTH Wilshire Drive and Essex?
You need to read them more carefully, and since you claim to have been in the area- is this a real question?
B
“Chris Lutzelberger, a resident of S. Essex St who likely observed the exchange between McDonald and the officer…”
This is nothing but speculation on your part.
Lutzelberger informed Robinson him that a man matching McDonald’s description was sitting on an electrical box located behind his residence earlier that morning from approximately 9AM-9:30Am at which time he told the individual to leave.
By 11AM, as security was requested by another officer at 11:23AM, a wash no more than 50 yards from where McDonald entered the south end of the park yielded a sheet, bed skirt, and a bag of clothes that were processed at the scene and taken into evidence.
Where, exactly, does the report say the man seen by Mr. Lutzelberger “matched McDonald’s description”? Where is the description of Mr. McDonald contained within Officer Robinson’s report that you’re drawing these conclusions from? Wearing a white t-shirt – with no mention of the writing Mr. Lutzelberger saw on the front of said t-shirt – is not grounds for such a declaration.
And if Mr McDonald was so closed mouthed about what he was doing, take a moment to think about how Detective Gonzales knew there were items of evidentiary value in the wash?
Mr. McDonald references the contributors of this site being responsible for perpetrating this internet witch hunt against him – not just you specifically – although the bias in your article is clear to anyone who knows how to read critically. As an example of the unfounded and unsupported conjecture leveled against Mr. McDonald, apparently based on one word “abruptly” used in one paragraph in a 550 page report, I give you these, which – by approving them – makes you complicit in their content. And let me point out, the tone of your article and your responses to the comments very clearly show the conclusions you’ve already reached on the matter. These are just a few of the wild speculations thrown about by contributors this site, and are based entirely on conclusions you’ve reached – unaided and without supporting evidence – within the body of your article.
“Yes, I know that just because I did not know about the tunnels doesn’t mean people don’t skulk around down there……”
“This Nathan McDonald has me bugged. Did resident notice if McDonald had the maglite at 9-9:30 a.m. while sitting on an electric box on near S. Essex?”
“Apparently the neighbor who’s [SIC] box was being perched on, thought it was strange and asked NM to leave and proceeded to report it to LE.
I also note that if he did get a call that police stopped at the house to ask if they heard anything, he would also have been told their [SIC] was heavy LE on the street and he sits on an electric box for half an hour”
“…
His position in that alley is extremely odd and does not match what he said he was doing.”
“Did McDonald then cross the street and go behind the houses into the alley and into the property of Lutzelberger? Why didn’t Lutzel tell him to get out of there right away?”
Where in the report does it say that Mr. McDonald was the man sitting on the electrical box? This is a conclusion YOU have reached, and at the VERY least hinted at within your article, so now it is being cited as fact, despite not being in the police report. Because of your careless phrasing and sloppy reporting, the conclusion reached by those reading your article is that Mr. McDonald and the man perched atop Mr. Lutzelberger’s electrical box are one and the same, when there is no evidence within the police report to indicate this is true.
If Mr. McDonald is guilty of anything, then that is up to the police to decide. It is not up to you to both try and convict him in the court of public opinion based on your interpretation of the little information the police have released on the case so far.
Ok, there is this little matter of public records that were released.
Then, there is this little thing called the Constitution which protects a little rule called freedom of speech. Thus, entitling me to express my opinion, as well as others.
There have been zero allegations made about Mr. McDonald, except he and his property that he shares with Ms. Gregory were the subject of a police investigation and warrant as indicated in a publicly released report. It is a component, one of many, that are the subject of publicly released documents contributing to this article in what is an ONGOING criminal investigation into the disappearance of Isabel Celis.
I expect and have been told to expect more docs next week, but that is unofficial.
At such time if there are discrepencies, you can bet that I will point them out.
B
Thanks for the map link Blink.
After taking the link and looking at the maps I did not see anything in the storm drain maps that I found to be new as compared to what I found with Google Earth. It would be useful if detail maps of the street crossings and other undergroud areas could be linked to each of the area or township maps. Maybe they are, but I did not find the proper link to get to them.
Most cities or counties have an agency that is responsible for maps of sanitary sewers, storm drains, electrical, telephone, natural gas utility lines and high pressure lines and other underground structures. The problem is not everything is available on-line. This is a part of the safety system.
The natural gas cross-country lines as well as refined petroleum products lines and crude lines are all mapped on hundreds of pages of E sized drawings. These are updated every three years, but to my knowledge none are on-line.
I am only asking because there are four corners that can be considered wash side intersections of “Wilshire and Downing”.
I’ve marked them here. Given the information in the pdf files, it’s unclear. I think it’s safe to assume the bedding was collected somewhere in the area I’ve denoted with a line. Both somewhat north, some what south and directly between those four intersections. As you have marked the area in your article, I have to think you know which area it was and you’ve confirmed that it was between those four intersections. Is this right?
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2084/wilsherdowning.png
I guess I’m pointing this out, because in your article you state “no more than 50 yards from where McDonald entered the south end of the park”.
If the bedding was at the furthest end of what I think is reasonable to assume based on what is in the pdf files, that is over a block away from “where McDonald entered the south end of the park”. According to the scaling on google image, that is over 200 yards. So, for you to make so conclusive a statement, I have to think you have other information to go on.
Mind you, I am not making any comments about what I did or did not see in the wash, and what I know about the bedding, if I in fact know anything at all. I am simply pointing out that to have made so definite a statement of distance, you hopefully have some more specific information to go on.
Emille……. I I R C On site tests for blood are refered to as presumptive tests
“Again, I made no claim that there is information I have that is also only known to LE, again, this is coverage to date, taken from publicly available documents that were RELEASED, THAT CONTAIN THE INFORMATION HEREIN.
Really- you feel the fact that a witness, who is on record asking you to leave from being perched on his electrical box, the exchange of which was released publicly, is protecting an investigation? ”
Blink, nowhere in the pdf’s does he positively identify me. When I pointed this out you said you would defer to your source.
So which is it? He refers to me specifically and identifies me or he doesn’t, in the pdf?
I can answer that, he doesn’t. So if you are saying it was me, you need to prove that.
Nathan McDonald : 2. You stated in your interview that I was “approached” and “confronted” by the officer in the park, and you state that a witness approached the officer and said “THAT individual was sitting on an electrical box behind my home”. None of that is in any report that I’ve read. The witness described a man by description and did not reference me specifically (as far as the reports I’ve read). As I said in other posts you haven’t published, I approached the officer in the park. Our entire conversation took place while he sat in his car. What I saw in that wash that day is well documented by the police. You don’t have that documentation. Where I walked that day is well documented by the police, you don’t have that documentation. They released none of it in their documents. I am not going to be the one to do it. Maybe it’s important to their investigation, I don’t know.
Blink : Nathan, I defer to my sources on this one, you are correct, it is not in the report.
So what sources are you deferring to other than the pdf’s that never identify me as a man sitting on a box?
Has it even remotely occurred to you that I encountered other people in that wash, and that they are not in any release, and there may be a reason for that, and I don’t want to mention it because I think that might be important?
Nathan, it is difficult for readers to know what quotes are mine and what are your comments/response.
If you would be so kind, can you indicate you vs. blink when you are quoting please?
Lastly, if you have an issue with the reports that were generated as you did describing them initially as “incorrect or vague” I would suggest you follow up with the Tucson Police Department.
B
I have pointed out so many inaccuracies.
1. No positive identification is made of me sitting on some box. Post the image of the pdf please.
2. You cannot prove that the bedding from the pdf was “within 50 yards of where Mr. McDonald entered the south end of the park”.
3. I was never “approached” by an officer.
4. I never stated Sergio Jr. rang my doorbell.
5. I never stated he was with TPD.
I don’t want to talk about any of this. I am only here to protect my name against a person who is posting incorrect statements about me.
I am not trying to control information. I am trying to stop disinformation.
I don’t want to set the record straight. I want to stop it from being set crooked. Which continually happening in your article and interview.
I am not correcting you with information that I have and won’t share. I am pointing out reports you are making of public record that are incorrect reports of facts contained there in. Or I am pointing out that you are making statements of assumption based on incomplete evidence that you have.
From your interview
1. Are you sure the search warrant was issued at the same time as the Celis warrant? My house is an addendum on the Celis family warrant, so it will show that it was issued when that warrant was, but that is not necessarily correct.
2. The tunnels are not under the mall, a mile from my house. I don’t know what tunnels to which you refer. But not the ones I walked through.
3. “There’s no way you’re going to justify that in that time frame he would have even known.” You cannot make so definitive a statement given what little information you have.
I can only make commentary on known information, I would say that is true of anyone.
I note you just stated that you walked through tunnels that morning. E. S Wilshire?
B
There are no gaps in my accounts btw.
Because I am not sharing details does not mean there are gaps in my account.
I’ve made no account publicly. To the police, I’ve given everything.
You seem really angry with me for some reason.
You posted inaccurate accounts of public record as they pertain to me. I’ve pointed this out. You inaccurately quoted the statement I made about that morning, I pointed that out. You wrote an article and gave an interview that have other inaccurate accounts of statements made in public record and assumptions that cannot be reasonably made, I pointed that out.
I don’t see what I’m doing wrong here. I’m not double speaking. I’m correcting your verifiable inaccuracies and refusing to share personal information.
No, next door neighbor.
B
Nathan, people are going to speculate, based on the info they have gotten from the internet, news, etc. Of course, none of us knows all the details, so we are left to speculate with what we do know. Of course LE keeps tons of case-sensitive info private. they must!!
I’m not saying you are involved in Isa’s disappearance-I’m saying that people will connect the dots, whether they are correct in how they connect them or not. We’re human. We are concerned about this little girl, as you seem to be as well. You may very well be innocent and you clearly are simply a person who lives on the same street as the Celis’, so we are going to speculate about you and every one else that might be involved. It doesn’t make you guilty and it doesn’t make us wrong for doing so. Many are looking at Sergio as well. So what? Hopefully, the truth will come out. That is all we want.
I am wondering why mr. McDonald doesn’t ask the police if he can respond to questions about his involvement in this case. Ask them if he can tell others why the warrent for his home was secured etc. If LE didn’t tell him NOT to talk- then, he should be able to explain his position. If he doesn’t want to explain his posiiton- why does he want to post here? To just go to a site and tell ppl not to use public documents to try to connect dots in a high profile child kidnapping (or whatever)- is silly and unrealistic.
What I have learned from reading Mr. McDonald’s comments and your answers Blink is that all statements made must be verified, otherwise isn’t it getting close to defamation of character of Mr. McDonald? I am not a lawyer but insinuating that he may be somehow connected to Isabel’s disappearance. Isn’t that defamation of character? Blink you can put this private if you want. I was just wondering. I’m not saying that this could happen and I know nothing of what you know. Just looking out for you and feeling that it is a fine line. I am looking forward to Part 2.
No, not in the stratosphere.
B
Blink, if you were Mr. McDonald and had nothing to do with anything in connection to Isabel’s disappearance, wouldn’t you be pissed that someone was putting your name in the middle of this whole thing? Wouldn’t you be defending yourself? I have no idea if he is involved or not but I think it is scary if you are a good samaritan and go looking for Isabel and then next thing you know people are questioning if you are involved. Kind of like Roy Kronk. Please don’t take offense. I am just observing. I think it’s a shame that you have to think twice about getting involved in anything.
I was wondering if the bedding found could have been from homeless people and have nothing do with Isabel’s disappearance? That was the first thing I thought of when they found clothes and bedding.
http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981370413
I agree with the woman writing this article and that Isabel was dead before she even left the home. The same with Lisa Irwin and Madeline McCain. What I don’t understand is why it is so easy for all these people to get away with it.
Deb
I think it’s strange that he is posting here also. If it were me and people were connecting me to a case that I was not involved in I would be getting a lawyer and not blogging on a site. That is kind of strange in my opinion.
“Ok, there is this little matter of public records that were released.”
Yes, and nowhere within those public records does it say that Mr Lutzelberger indicated that someone matching Mr McDonald’s description was anywhere near his electrical box. That was a little gem you made up.
“Then, there is this little thing called the Constitution which protects a little rule called freedom of speech. Thus, entitling me to express my opinion, as well as others.”
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but you can not do it under the guise of “investigative reporting”. When claiming to be an investigative journalist, you must report FACTS, not opinion and speculation. The public relies on you to present a fair and unbiased account of the facts as given to you. That is the duty of a journalist. If you were simply claiming to be the blogger that you are, without the claiming to report facts and under the moniker of “… an investigative journalist, author, and investigative analyst in private practice” I would take no issue to your insinuations, as they would carry no more weight than the all the other inane ramblings of every other nutjob on the internet.
“There have been zero allegations made about Mr. McDonald, except he and his property that he shares with Ms. Gregory were the subject of a police investigation and warrant as indicated in a publicly released report.”
There have been MANY allegations levelled at Mr. McDonald. You and many others have speculated that he was the person on Mr. Lutzelberger’s electrical box and have used this as grounds to question his motivations in searching for the poor daughter of his neighbour has gone missing. There have been insinuations of a conspiracy between Mr. Celis Sr and Mr. McDonald, speculation that he is involved in drugs and he is somehow complicit in abducting her as part of a drug war, among other things. I would also note that Mr. McDonald and Ms. Gregory’s house was not the only one searched that day, but you’re going after him with a rabid ferocity that is baffling to watch.
“It is a component, one of many, that are the subject of publicly released documents contributing to this article in what is an ONGOING criminal investigation into the disappearance of Isabel Celis.”
An ongoing criminal investigation where you are trying to muddy the waters with inaccurate “reporting” of nothing more than opinion. Take a moment to think – if the police suspected Mr. McDonald in any way, would they compromise their investigation by releasing information on him? What they have released so far is non-sensitive, and withheld documents relevant to the investigation.
“I expect and have been told to expect more docs next week, but that is unofficial.”
Yes, and when and if those released documents in any way implicate Mr. McDonald, I will celebrate your right to “report” those facts. However, what you are doing in this website in nothing more than libel and frankly, I hope he sues the pants off you for defamation of character and emotional distress for what you’ve put him through. You’ve done this for no good reason that I can see beyond a rabid desire to see conspiracy where there is none. We all want Isabel to come home. I fail to see how mounting a witch hunt against someone who has been cleared by police is in any way aiding that cause.
“At such time if there are discrepencies [SIC], you can bet that I will point them out.”
There are no discrepancies in the police report regarding Mr. McDonald. This is my point. You are just wildly speculating because you want to see a story where there is none. Mr. McDonald has been clear that he is no longer under investigation and hasn’t been since the day his property was searched. The fact that the police released the documents regarding his encounter with Officer Robinson support his claims. You claiming authority and perpetuating this line of reasoning is not only rude and reckless, it’s libellous as well. I hope you not only take down this so called ” news report” but you also think long and hard in the future before you start touting opinion as fact.
Oh really, no discrepencies? He found them vague and incorrect. So how is it you speak for him, and have a different opinion?
Claiming authority? What are you even talking about?
“And hasn’t been since the day his property was searched”
O? Well he and Ms. Gregory met with detectives at their request the following day with a “question about the warrant”. And How would you have “authority” to make that statement?
B
Deb
I think you have a valid point. Mr. McDonald may be trying to defend his actions on the morning of the disappearance. His motive for going on a search mission alone during such a time is to me the most questionable of his actions. The key word is Alone.
Yes, the various underground drainage structures needed to be searched, but to do it without police authorization or without others in the search party is strange to say the least. This is behavior that a person would use to hide something.
He may be totally innocent. It may have been just poor judgement. Only time will determine this. The police have certainly done further investigation that may or may not clear up questions about his behavior. To date, we have nothing that indicates clearance.
Great post deb. I don’t want to respond too much to this because I feel Blink should handle it but I agree with you. What we are doing here, is what people do. You are given facts and you take those facts and try to figure out a puzzle. Yes, that is what police do but I did not know there was a law or rule that says people can’t rationally discuss a case. I don’t think anyone here is saying that the opinions they give are indeed fact. I also don’t think anyone here has ever said that the neighbor is guilty. I feel almost like someone is trying to come here and censor us and tell us we can’t talk to each other. I have almost come to the point where I feel I should not come here to read and discuss but that isn’t right to feel that way.
@ Nathan McDonald -
I think one of the reasons it might seem like you’re double speaking is because at times you are intentionally ambiguous when it doesn’t really seem necessary. For example: You wrote, “Mind you, I am not making any comments about what I did or did not see in the wash, and what I know about the bedding, if I in fact know anything at all.”
People naturally become suspicious when they see language used in this way. Perhaps you’re being evasive to protect the investigation, as you claim…or perhaps it’s just to protect yourself. People will always wonder. Whether it’s fair or not, your name was “put out there” when the police documents became public information. If you’re innocent of wrong doing, it will blow over and hopefully you’ll be remembered as a good citizen who tried to help his neighbors find their missing daughter.
Ecossie Possie, thank you! Presumptive tests are what I was referring to. I hope LE won’t hold us in suspense about the forensic results of all the blood & fluid testing.
@Susie
I have no problem with that, in fact I encourage it.
Blink: Do we know for sure that this is really Mr. McDonald posting or could it be someone just looking for some attention? Your thoughts?
The best I can say is that Mr. McDonald claims to be Mr. McDonald and has stated he posted from work and home.
B
Mr. McDonald,
It is clear that you are angry but, I have to say that continuing to write posts to Blink and her loyal followers (myself included) that do not, in any way that I can glean from your statements, explain your odd behaviour that day is probably not going to make readers here feel anything but more curious as to who you are and your actions that day.
People who have been reading here for years (as so many of us have) have come to trust Blink in both her factual reporting and her hunches (of which she clearly distinguishes). Because of this, when someone states that Blink’s reporting is inaccurate while providing no fact to back up that statement, I think most readers here are much more hesitant to disregard Blink’s reporting as false.
I did not read any accusations here only statements from the LE documents showing some odd behaviour.
Personally, I find your behaviour that day outside of the norm and am quite curious as to your motivation. I also thought it interesting that the description of the man sitting on the electrical box could describe you and wondered why anyone would just sit on someone else’s electrical box. And, if it was you why you would be walking the wash by yourself and them sitting on an electrical box – just seemed odd to me.
It is, of course, possible that you had the most altruistic of motivations for your actions that day, without knowing you we can only go by the documents released by the LE which describe, in my opinion, odd behavior and your comments here which, again in my opinion, do nothing but state you will be doing nothing to clear up any confusion over your actions or statements that day.
My long winded point is that; unless you are willing offer explanation to your behaviour that day to the contrary of what Blink has reported,, and it seems that you have either been told not to discuss it or chosen not to, I recommend that you stop posting that Blink is making false statements as (in my opinion and I only speak for myself) your unsubstantiated posts are not going to win you many friends or supporters here.
Were I in McDonald’s shoes I wouldn’t use so many words. I would just point blank say ‘I was here, here, and here. My wife knew. I cannot comment on what I found. jr rang my doorbell. Don’t waste anymore time on me.’
Seriously, how hard can that be?
Nathan’s response addressing that is now posted. He was woken by Sergio Jr, his wife did know he was out searching, and other neighbors were doing the same.
Good Lord in heaven, where is this child?
Mcdonald: “I am correcting your verifiable inaccuracies and refusing to share personal information.”
McDonald is doing more than that, he is also refusing to answer simple questions such as: “Were you sitting on the neighbor’s electric box?” “Did you see the bedding in the wash?” “Which son came to your door?
Instead, he is attempting to deflect attention away from himself by speculating as to whether Blink’s statement about the distance of the bedding from the entrance to the park was 200 rather than 50 yards and whether the neighbor saw McDonald’s encounter with LE, among others.
While I acknowledge that the true facts may be important to the investigation, it is McDonald’s own defensive comments that make me believe more than ever that he is trying to hide something. I don’t know whether he is trying to hide something about the disappearance of Isabel or something else about himself that may be potentially humiliating.
Further, McDonald claims he cannot provide answers to these simple questions because it could affect the investigation. If this is a true statement, then he, himself, has implied some involvement. Consciousness of guilt, perhaps?
Can anyone explain why anyone might go out and search “a wash” for a missing child within hours of his/her disappearance? Are these “washes” known for children playing in/around them? Have there been missing children found in them, dead or alive before? I’m just curious, as I don’t exactly know what a wash is. I’m assuming that it’s a seasonal drainage ditch/stream, is that correct? If so, I’m also curious as to what time of year in Tucson, particularly, they might hold water?
Excellent Question.
B
Here is the thing Susie. You cannot say something as a legal allegation without stating that it is in your opinion, and even then, I am going to recommend that you cite it.
B
I believe based on what LE has said in their statement, that someone out there knows the truth about Sergio and/or Becky Celis and they are afraid to come forward. Maybe because they are close to Sergio and Becky and don’t want the truth to come out?
I believe the person who is close to Sergio and/or Becky knows what happened and is the only link for LE to make an arrest. LE knows what happened and is frustrated because that person or persons out there knows the truth but doesn’t want to say anything because they don’t want to see Sergio and/or Becky get in trouble. That is just what I see when I read between the lines of the last statement that was made by LE. LE can’t pin it on the Celis’s without this persons coming forward.
Oops I meant person.
I don’t know and can’t say who Mr.Lutzelberger saw sitting in his back alley.
I can say, though, I believe his visual account when he states the man he saw was wearing a t-shirt with AUTO WORLD on it.
Impressions based on a portion of the publicly released documents:
1) Mr.Lutzelberger took the time to observe and assess the individual before arriving at his thought that the individual appeared “suspicious” to him.
2) After his assessment, Mr.Lutzelberger made the decision to have direct verbal contact (continuing the visual) with the individual by telling him to leave the alley way and imo, probably continued to observe the individual get up from where he was seated and move on.
3) imo, the logo of AUTO WORLD is simplistic yet highly visible and viewer retentive, with a round image of the world/globe standing in for the letter “O” in “WORLD”. The “globe” is not only larger in height than all the letters, it is a focal “pop” the eye sees quickly because of it’s “solid thickness” in contrast to the linear thickness of all the letters.
The logo design “makes sense” to the viewer and is apt to be retained by the viewer, imo.
4) AUTO WORLD appears to be a very popular dealership for purchasing and selling of used vehicles (and mechanical/body work that goes along with), so there is a good possibility Mr.Lutzelberger is aware of it either through direct contact or observation of the company’s visual promotion or other.
JMO’s.
Maybe Sergio and/or Becky did not do it; but by ratting on other people, it would incmimmate them. For instance if someone did it to pay back an illegal drug deal, it would incmiminate them (the Celiss) because that person was selling out of home or he was living there.
Is it possible that the boys were removed from Sergio’s “space”, not because of worry that Sergio would be a danger to the boys, but that Sergio himself is in danger? If someone is after Sergio for some huge amount of money, whatever the cause, and CPS found out about it from LE, would that not make sense of the voluntary split?
Just pondering LE’s use of the words about putting some space between them.