Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #1

[Knox]

How come the police are not calling this an abduction yet?

I think this is what the family wants to know?

 

[JeannaT]

Humm - no scent of her being on the road jogging?
Thank-you for this information.

The search dogs in Leann Bearden's case went off in the wrong direction. The search dogs couldn't locate Laci Peterson's scent in places they knew for a fact she had been in the day prior to her disappearance. The search dogs in Jessica Lunsford's case couldn't track her disappearance to just a few trailers down the road. How many cases have we seen where little ones run off on foot from their yards, and are later located fairly close by, and the search dogs don't pick up their scents.

I'm beginning to believe that search dogs used to be very valuable in a time when people didn't have so many chemicals on them all the time. 100 years ago, people smelled like themselves - not like deodorant, perfume, lotion, hair spray, sunscreen, laundry detergent, etc., - all of which can change from day to day. Search dogs have just become a thing of a bygone era, IMHO.

Search dogs are VERY valuable in natural disasters, where they have to find people in general, who might be stuck in debris out of sight. But they just don't live up to the public's perception of excellence when it comes to locating the trail of a specific person.

 

[Jazz]

I think this is what the family wants to know?

Sheriff said there is no evidence of an abduction

 

[Jazz]

Husband could have made the story up. Need timeline someone??

 

[missgulfsouth]

How come the police are not calling this an abduction yet?

It was stated that scent dogs picked up no scent at the phone location. If that is true, she may not have been there at all, which means the phone was planted there by someone else to throw off LE. It took a while before LE called William Tyrell's case an abduction ... he just vanished into thin air.

 

[JeannaT]

Sheriff said there is no evidence of an abduction

I'm curious about the "chunks of hair" that were reported in the missing flyer to be located at the scene - is that just a misunderstanding or misreporting?

 

[mrseeker]

I am trying to catch up to the thread and am a little confused. The daily mail story seemed to say she usually picks up the kids in the afternoon and then goes for a run? Is that reversed? I mean who is watching the kids? Secondly a few articles say she was last "seen jogging". Do they have witnesses that saw her?

 

[Pamela_Brewer]

Hi Knox!
Thanks for this - I agree it answers a lot. He's also specific about what the husband does for a living which clarifies a little for me why he may not have his phone "in work"......

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1525604334396831/permalink/1684126991877897/

Look for his comment on this post. He states that the husband DID try and call her and the daycare DID call him when children were not picked up. FWIW

His story sounds like it is a little different than what is being reported though.
MOO

ETA: Better link.
https://m.facebook.com/comment/repl...84126991877897&gfid=AQAnN0fO-RPBlcsx&refid=18


https://facebook.com/comment/replie...84126991877897&gfid=AQAnN0fO-RPBlcsx&refid=18

 

[JeannaT]

I am trying to catch up to the thread and am a little confused. The daily mail story seemed to say she usually picks up the kids in the afternoon and then goes for a run? Is that reversed? I mean who is watching the kids? Secondly a few articles say she was last "seen jogging". Do they have witnesses that saw her?

LE reported that "several neighbors who knew her" reported seeing her jogging just before or just after noon.

I think the other is a mistake, and she runs and then picks them up.

 

[LozDa]

The search dogs in Leann Bearden's case went off in the wrong direction. The search dogs couldn't locate Laci Peterson's scent in places they knew for a fact she had been in the day prior to her disappearance. The search dogs in Jessica Lunsford's case couldn't track her disappearance to just a few trailers down the road. How many cases have we seen where little ones run off on foot from their yards, and are later located fairly close by, and the search dogs don't pick up their scents.

I'm beginning to believe that search dogs used to be very valuable in a time when people didn't have so many chemicals on them all the time. 100 years ago, people smelled like themselves - not like deodorant, perfume, lotion, hair spray, sunscreen, laundry detergent, etc., - all of which can change from day to day. Search dogs have just become a thing of a bygone era, IMHO.

Search dogs are VERY valuable in natural disasters, where they have to find people in general, who might be stuck in debris out of sight. But they just don't live up to the public's perception of excellence when it comes to locating the trail of a specific person.

http://aboutforensics.co.uk/detection-dogs/

"Obviously the air is full of a vast variety of different odours, many of which will be powerfully clear to the dog. Fortunately they are able to distinguish between different odours, even if one smell overpowers another, and trace a specific scent to its source."

It's not an exact science, of course... but if they had found a scent, would you be of the opinion they're a waste of time? I don't think they would still use search dogs if they were not of use at all. Especially if they had been no use for 100 years.

Every effort to find her is worthwhile.

It's not an indicator alone of anything that there was no scent found by the dogs, but it may be an accumulation of indicators that makes it a substantial point to note.

 

[iluvmua]

It was stated that scent dogs picked up no scent at the phone location. If that is true, she may not have been there at all, which means the phone was planted there by someone else to throw off LE. It took a while before LE called William Tyrell's case an abduction ... he just vanished into thin air.

That is what I'm thinking, she was taken on some other road and the perpetual discarded her personal stuff in an entire different area.

Jmo

 

[JeannaT]

http://aboutforensics.co.uk/detection-dogs/

"Obviously the air is full of a vast variety of different odours, many of which will be powerfully clear to the dog. Fortunately they are able to distinguish between different odours, even if one smell overpowers another, and trace a specific scent to its source."

It's not an exact science, of course... but if they had found a scent, would you be of the opinion they're a waste of time? I don't think they would still use search dogs if they were not of use at all. Especially if they had been no use for 100 years.

Every effort to find her is worthwhile.

But I do remember cases, like in an avalanche or earthquake, and certainly 911, here dogs are invaluable at finding humans in general.


It's not an indicator alone of anything that there was no scent found by the dogs, but it may be an accumulation of indicators that makes it a substantial point to note.

At one point, I was highly interested in participating in SAR, and went as far as to go to an orientation meeting where training and expectations would be discussed. What was made clear at that meeting is that what SAR dogs are useful for is not what they communicate, but what they FIND. So, if a dog appears to locate a scent that goes nowhere, or if a dog appears to not locate a scent you believe should be there, it is not to be taken into account. Certainly not legally. They are there to find things, not to be believed if they find or don't find a trail. Interesting. I just think the public thinks they are infallible, and if they find or don't appear to find a trail, they're indicating the truth of what happened.

I can't remember one single case in the last decade - not one single one here on Websleuths either - where search dogs were brought in to find missing people and they actually located them. Humans smelled Jessica Lunsford's remains by smell that the dogs didn't alert on.

 

[missgulfsouth]

That is what I'm thinking, she was taken on some other road and the perpetual discarded her personal stuff in an entire different area.

Jmo

Quite possible, indeed. I'm sure they have an investigation / forensics at the house, in case she made it back there after her run.

 

[terracotta]

The phone and ear buds also could have been thrown out of a car, so no scent would be picked up from her.

I totally believe the husband is innocent, hopefully LE publicly clears him to stop people from feeling he was involved. This is such a horrendous situation, I'm sure he is in shock. The interview with him was very clear that this is a living nightmare for him. His facial expressions were real and what you would expect for someone going through this. IMO I have this weird thing that if someone is lying and fake crying, it doesn't make me cry with them, but if someone is crying for real, then I cry with them. Does anyone else have that reaction to liars vs real?

Please let them find Sherri...alive! so heartbreaking.

 

[missgulfsouth]

At one point, I was highly interested in participating in SAR, and went as far as to go to an orientation meeting where training and expectations would be discussed. What was made clear at that meeting is that what SAR dogs are useful for is not what they communicate, but what they FIND. So, if a dog appears to locate a scent that goes nowhere, or if a dog appears to not locate a scent you believe should be there, it is not to be taken into account. Certainly not legally. They are there to find things, not to be believed if they find or don't find a trail. Interesting. I just think the public thinks they are infallible, and if they find or don't appear to find a trail, they're indicating the truth of what happened.

I can't remember one single case in the last decade - not one single one here on Websleuths either - where search dogs were brought in to find missing people and they actually located them. Humans smelled Jessica Lunsford's remains by smell that the dogs didn't alert on.

What about cases, such as William Tyrell, for instance, where dogs follow a scent to the road, and then nothing? Investigators said it indicated he was taken in a vehicle. Are you saying that is not necessarily true?

 

[Elizabeth8178]

I'm curious about the "chunks of hair" that were reported in the missing flyer to be located at the scene - is that just a misunderstanding or misreporting?

I believe I read that "chunks" are now really only strands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Knox]

Sheriff said there is no evidence of an abduction

IMVHO, the above has become somewhat of a politically correct statement. If LE calls it an abduction too soon and the victim just walked off, they have mud on their face. I think it also has legal ramifications. Defense attorney's and juries are so (grasping for a polite adjective) ... LE has to protect themselves and any potential future case.

 

[LozDa]

At one point, I was highly interested in participating in SAR, and went as far as to go to an orientation meeting where training and expectations would be discussed. What was made clear at that meeting is that what SAR dogs are useful for is not what they communicate, but what they FIND. So, if a dog appears to locate a scent that goes nowhere, or if a dog appears to not locate a scent you believe should be there, it is not to be taken into account. Certainly not legally. They are there to find things, not to be believed if they find or don't find a trail. Interesting. I just think the public thinks they are infallible, and if they find or don't appear to find a trail, they're indicating the truth of what happened.

I can't remember one single case in the last decade - not one single one here on Websleuths either - where search dogs were brought in to find missing people and they actually located them. Humans smelled Jessica Lunsford's remains by smell that the dogs didn't alert on.

BBM Search dogs are brought in to track or identify scents of a person who has been present. They're not brought in on some crazy chase to find someone.

I don't think they're infallible at all, but I think in every single case, they're better than nothing.

 

[Jazz]

The phone and ear buds also could have been thrown out of a car, so no scent would be picked up from her.

I totally believe the husband is innocent, hopefully LE publicly clears him to stop people from feeling he was involved. This is such a horrendous situation, I'm sure he is in shock. The interview with him was very clear that this is a living nightmare for him. His facial expressions were real and what you would expect for someone going through this. IMO I have this weird thing that if someone is lying and fake crying, it doesn't make me cry with them, but if someone is crying for real, then I cry with them. Does anyone else have that reaction to liars vs real?

Please let them find Sherri...alive! so heartbreaking.

I disagree, I believe he was NOT telling the truth. I did not like the fact that he said " I will come there". I am thinking, come there where?

 

[missgulfsouth]

The phone and ear buds also could have been thrown out of a car, so no scent would be picked up from her.

I totally believe the husband is innocent, hopefully LE publicly clears him to stop people from feeling he was involved. This is such a horrendous situation, I'm sure he is in shock. The interview with him was very clear that this is a living nightmare for him. His facial expressions were real and what you would expect for someone going through this. IMO I have this weird thing that if someone is lying and fake crying, it doesn't make me cry with them, but if someone is crying for real, then I cry with them. Does anyone else have that reaction to liars vs real?

Please let them find Sherri...alive! so heartbreaking.

Yes, I have that insight and empathy, as well. I first realized I had it with the Susan Smith case, I was 19 ... I just knew something was off. But I haven't watched any media coverage or interviews in this case.