Chapter 4 - WHAT CELESTE CLAIMED
Celeste’s attorney contacted mine the next morning.
Her initial explanation:
She believed Birdie contained a sharp object.
That was why she wanted to take it.
I laughed when Leah Monroe read me the statement.
Then stopped because absurd explanations still deserve factual answers.
Why suspect sharp object?
Celeste said she saw the seam protruding.
Why lock Emma in the maintenance passage?
She denied intending prolonged confinement.
She claimed she was trying to separate Emma from the doll during a tantrum and used the open service area as a “quiet alcove.”
Exterior grille?
“Closed for safety.”
Locked?
“Automatic latch.”
False.
Video showed her sliding the bolt manually.
Then:
“Stay in the dark until you tell me what’s inside that doll.”
Hallway audio captured it.
So the sharp-object story weakened immediately.
Then the bundle.
Celeste admitted recognizing Dana’s identification card.
Why?
She knew Dana from corporate events.
Normal.
Why lunge?
She claimed concern that Emma might touch an unknown electronic device.
But Emma was already behind Maren.
I had the package.
Then:
“It means nothing.”
Why say that?
“Shock.”
No explanation for the panic.
She denied knowing what was on the USB.
That could be true.
May you like
Knowing evidence exists is not the same as knowing its contents.
This distinction mattered later.
