Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #11

[TravelingBug]

Most of us have this true crime 'hobby' because we are curious people who are attracted by the unknown. After you follow a zillion cases, you start to notice inconsistencies and weird stuff much more easily, and this is a VERY weird case. I don't think there's any harm in continuing to try to figure out what the heck went down, especially if other people might be in danger.

I know some people thinking that pointing out ANYTHING means one believes there's something shady going on, but I've been away from this case for weeks, came back like 20 minutes ago to discover all the news, and just happened to notice how unusual the husband's writing style is (given the various family/victim statements I've read over the years). For what it's worth, I don't actually draw any solid conclusions from it--except that he may be an aspiring writer.

(Additionally, I don't think he was obligated to tell the public anything, so you would have never seen me demanding more details about her physical condition or thinking it was weird that they weren't forthcoming.)

Which seems to put you in a smaller percentage of people, even just based on the previous 2 threads on WS.

There was outcry and speculation in a vast number of posts full of people saying that various LE wouldn't have any ability to assess "heavily battered" and/or didn't give enough specifics and/or should have released more details so the public would know the extent of injuries and/or that the family should be more specific (sister, husband, whomever).

Then when LE spoke out more and gave a comparison injury wise with the bone analogy, there was even more outcry about not enough specifics and/or need more and/or that not being sufficient to explain the situation and/or that proving she wasn't truly injured.

It's seemed all along NO ONE can win w/ this case.

As someone else said, if anyone (husband/family/LE) said nothing they were getting criticism for not keeping the public informed or safe.

If they said some, they were getting criticism for not giving enough info and/or leaving too much room for speculation.

Now the husband has given more details and he's got people criticizing him for being exploitative and/or dramatic.

It seems a little like a Goldilocks situation - one bed, bowl of porridge, etc. is too this, that or the other, and finding "just right" doesn't seem possible with a huge percentage of people.

 

[JeannaT]

I do not think the Sheriff is purposely putting doubts in people's mind, rather he is being vague. IMO, I think the local LE are working their butts off with a load of info that still needs to be sorted out.

In my opinion, he has just called Keith a liar.

He has seen her, his detectives have seen her, and either 1. Keith's assessment is true or 2. it's a gross exaggeration.

And the sheriff knows exactly which one it is.

And he's saying he can't vouch for the veracity.

I'm getting madder and madder. Do they have a professional spokesman at that sheriff's department? Either this guy has no idea what the effect of his words have on the public, or Keith is grossly exaggerating her condition. Which is a little hard to believe.

 

[Iona]

I don't understand any of this which is why I haven't been posting on this case. Just this once I will point out (without judgement either way on the real/hoax argument).

The Sheriff keeps making statements that raises doubt in the public's mind about this case. Now why would he keep doing that?

Indeed...

 

[skibaboo]

I can't be the only one who needs this right now

:rollercoaster:

I don't know what that is, I'm guessing motion sickness relief? Does it work on heartburn? I've got awful heartburn

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

There has been no evidence that a ransom was paid. The only evidence is to the contrary based upon Cameron Gamble's statements in this article: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article117588963.html

He also has previously stated publicly that paying a ransom is not illegal according to his attorneys. I'm not an attorney so I have no idea personally.

Cameron Gamble is about as credible as Alex Jones. I have no idea why so many MSM outlets take him at face value.

I believe the sheriff also stated that no $ had changed hands. Don't have a link handy, but you may not need one, anyway...

“I was familiar with those details,” Bosenko told the program. “We had not released them yet to the public.”

But when pressed later in the day, Bosenko said he’d only confirmed that the details were in Keith Papini’s letter, not their veracity.

“I will remain with the same information I put out previously that she was located, taken to a local hospital, treated for non-life-threatening injuries and released,” Bosenko said.

Bosenko wouldn’t comment specifically on Sherri Papini’s injuries.

“We may be providing further information at a future date,” Bosenko said.
http://www.redding.com/news/local/Keith-Papini-on-GMA--403578496.html

My eyes are beginning to cross.

IMO, there is a delicate dance going on here (and please don't take this negatively toward LE, because they have my admiration even as they must aggravate readers keeping up with this case). The longer the dance goes on, the more some toes are going to be stepped on. I believe I can understand why the sheriff's dept worked all through Thanksgiving weekend (which I thought was highly commendable). I hope for everyone's sake an arrest is imminent.

JMO, IMHO...

 

[trixandhoney]

I don't understand any of this which is why I haven't been posting on this case. Just this once I will point out (without judgement either way on the real/hoax argument).

The Sheriff keeps making statements that raises doubt in the public's mind about this case. Now why would he keep doing that?

Right - and this is a sheriff with "over 30 years of experience" in LE.
http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/sheriff_index/sh_sheriff.aspx

 

[JDauxa]

I am glad the sheriff clarified because y'all were making me feel crazy for thinking that he was not necessarily confirming the details KP released as fact. I am still choosing to wait for LE's official update as to what the facts in this case are. That is not to say I don't feel for Sherri and her family, nor does it mean I necessarily believe this is a hoax or abduction. I am just going to stick to what LE has to say. I can say this has been an exhausting case to follow, I can't imagine how LE feels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[glassheater]

The not confirming the veracity of the statements was written by the reporter, not a direct quote from the Sheriff. It seems like the writer took the liberty to say the Sheriff didn't verify the veracity because he said he stands by his original report and doesn't confirm (nor deny) KPs description. I think it's a non factor and that he's just trying to keep the same poker face.

 

[DatelineFan]

:grouphug: You are a survivor just as Ms. Papini is a survivor! You are here for a reason as is Ms. Papini! God bless you both! We are very glad to have you here at WebSleuths!

Thank you. ❤️ I try not to share too much, because I've been through a lot in my life, and it's hard to believe! But I also think it's helpful to clear things up for others through our own experiences.

I can also think of many good reasons Sherri didn't see her kids right away. Bruises or not, it would be a difficult reunion.

 

[Logansden77]

In my opinion, he has just called Keith a liar.

He has seen her, his detectives have seen her, and either 1. Keith's assessment is true or 2. it's a gross exaggeration.

And the sheriff knows exactly which one it is.

And he's saying he can't vouch for the veracity.

I'm getting madder and madder. Do they have a professional spokesman at that sheriff's department? Either this guy has no idea what the effect of his words have on the public, or Keith is grossly exaggerating her condition. Which is a little hard to believe.

IMO, the Sheriff is trying to run an efficient investigation on an extremely high profile case and is limiting the amount of information being released so that investigation can proceed smoothly and as quickly as possible. To say he just called Keith a liar is a low blow, IMHO.

 

[soanyway]

I think we're all questioning the motive of SP's abductors. But I am in utter disbelief at the continued questioning of motives of SP, her family, and LE. Irregardless of what personal beliefs she may/may not have held 13 years ago (age 21), she is a victim of a horrendous crime. My daughter is 19 yr. old college student who is VERY outspoken on her social media, as is the vast majority of the people I see on SM her age. I shutter to think of the character assassination that would ensue if she ever went missing. I also know that her views (and the need to publicize them) will change dramatically in the next 10 years. Her brain won't be fully developed until she's 25. Getting married and having children will affect her in a way she can't possible begin to imagine at her age.

The case that brought me to WS was Heather McDonald. There was a flurry of speculation regarding drug use, extramarital affairs, prostitution, you name it. It was heartbreaking to see the lack of support in searching for her from a town I called home for over 20 years, IMO, based mainly on rumors. Fortunately, SP's family and additional resources kept her in the public's eye and she was found ALIVE. Why aren't we all rejoicing? Heather was not fortunate, her body was found 6 weeks later, discarded in the woods.

I have always believed SP was abducted. KP was genuinely distraught and immediately convinced that someone had taken her. He suggested and voluntarily submitted to a LDT and has LE has said KP has fully cooperated with the investigation. Their lives have put under a microscope for nearly 4 weeks. Why would anyone subject themselves to that kind of scrutiny if they didn't believe whole-heartedly their loved one was in danger? We can't talk about the outpouring of support for SP from those who knew her personally, but it's evidenced in many of the FB pages. The reports of local sex trafficking rings are also on many of those pages.

I was one of the first to mention sex trafficking as a motive to SP's abduction and I accept that many still do not subscribe to this theory. Hearing that SP is "not pretty enough" to be a victim is just absurd, IMO. She is a very attractive woman. If she we wearing a cap with a long ponytail jogging, I would imagine she would garner glances from both men and women alike. California leads the country in sex trafficking and contrary to what some may think, abductors don't exactly interview you to see if you are young enough, pretty enough, thin enough to be taken and tortured. They don't care. You are a commodity and by all accounts, SP could have been a hot commodity had she not received so much attention (and possibly a higher price-tag to get her back). But we need to dispel the myth that traffickers only take troubled teen girls. Anyone who is not educating their children and themselves on the dangers of human trafficking (including sex trafficking), IMO, is doing a grave disservice.

My heart goes out to SP (and her family). It's the wounds that didn't leave any bruising or scarring that could take a lifetime to heal. We haven't heard the extent of her abuse, but if she was taken for trafficking, there are almost always sexually assaults and drug use during the breaking period. I'm in no way implying this is what happened to SP, I clearly have no knowledge. But while we may not know the extent of her injuries and abuse, I hope we can all agree that she is a victim and worthy of our compassion. MOO

ETA, BBM, I can see traffickers cutting her hair (for shaming), but leaving it long enough for her to be marketable. I do think the women could have played an integral part, but there definitely men involved in her captivity. I also think SP did not immediately return home Thanksgiving Day and may have sought treatment elsewhere, which could've contributed to the delay in her reunion with the children. MOO

Sex traffickers use a variety of ways to “condition” their victims, including subjecting them to starvation, rape, gang rape, physical abuse, beating, confinement, threats of violence toward the victim and victim’s family, forced drug use, and shame.

Human trafficking is one of the fastest growing criminal enterprises because it holds relatively low risk with high profit potential. Criminal organizations are increasingly attracted to human trafficking because, unlike drugs, humans can be sold repeatedly.

Human trafficking is estimated to surpass the drug trade in less than five years. Journalist Victor Malarek reports that it is primarily men who are driving human trafficking, specifically trafficking for sex.

In approximately 54% of human trafficking cases, the recruiter is a stranger, and in 46% of the cases, the recruiters know the victim. Fifty-two percent of human trafficking recruiters are men, 42% are women, and 6% are both men and women.

http://www.factretriever.com/human-trafficking-facts

Human trafficking is not a topic that comes up frequently on the North Coast, and it’s not a problem that many local residents are aware can happen here. “There’s a problem with recruitment everywhere, even in rural communities,” says Elle Snow, a sex trafficking survivor’s advocate based in Humboldt County, “but it takes the community to start realizing there’s a problem.”

http://www.willitsnews.com/article/NR/20160420/NEWS/160429990

 

[gitana1]

“I was familiar with those details,” Bosenko told the program. “We had not released them yet to the public.”

But when pressed later in the day, Bosenko said he’d only confirmed that the details were in Keith Papini’s letter, not their veracity.

“I will remain with the same information I put out previously that she was located, taken to a local hospital, treated for non-life-threatening injuries and released,” Bosenko said.

Bosenko wouldn’t comment specifically on Sherri Papini’s injuries.

“We may be providing further information at a future date,” Bosenko said.
http://www.redding.com/news/local/Keith-Papini-on-GMA--403578496.html

From this article - the back and forth is maddening: http://www.redding.com/news/local/Keith-Papini-on-GMA--403578496.html

"But when pressed later in the day, Bosenko said he’d only confirmed that the details were in Keith Papini’s letter, not their veracity.

“I will remain with the same information I put out previously that she was located, taken to a local hospital, treated for non-life-threatening injuries and released,” Bosenko said."

The reporting, IMO, is ambiguous. "But when pressed later in the day, Bosenko said he’d only confirmed that the details were in Keith Papini’s letter, not their veracity." Those are the reporter's words.

The sheriff states "I will remain with the same information I put out previously that she was located, taken to a local hospital, treated for non-life-threatening injuries and released,” Bosenko said. This doesn't necessarily mean he is disputing KP's words, but rather he's sticking by his less detailed statement. Why? Not wishing to violate SP's privacy or wanting to keep certain details of the investigation close to the vest - JMO

No way is the husband going to release such graphic and descriptive details if untrue. That would create real problems with LE and cause them to mistrust KP and SP. And the Sheriff stated earlier indicated "those details" were true, but had not been released.

My feeling at this time is that the sheriff did not want to release much of anything and that the Papinis are going rogue in order to defend Sherri. I mean it makes sense to not release such details. because then, if a witness comes forward and says, for example, that she saw Sherri in a car and tried to talk to her, they can ask, "Did she look injured?" And if the person answers that she did not have injuries, but Sherri has healing ones that are over a certain age, then they can discount the statement and eliminate it as a true sighting of Sherri.

Same thing would apply to confessions, etc. If someone confesses or turns on someone else, they need to have details not released to the public that can be confirmed.

But my gosh this guy really is handling this poorly. It's like he;s throwing her under the bus. I've never seen anything like this. Why can't he simply say, "I am not in a position to confirm or deny anything that is being released to the public from other than our office, as I am preserving the integrity of the investigation."

I mean, his doublespeak isn't unringing the bell. It's just making it look like he doesn't have faith in the Papinis and that's not cool. .

 

[JeannaT]

IMO, the Sheriff is trying to run an efficient investigation on an extremely high profile case and is limiting the amount of information being released so that investigation can proceed smoothly and as quickly as possible. To say he just called Keith a liar is a low blow, IMHO.

In my opinion, the Papinis are suffering horribly with the public hostility, and the sheriff seems either unaware that he is part of the cause, or he feels so strongly that they are misrepresenting the truth that he doesn't care about creating hostile public reaction to them. The information was released by Keith. Now, by calling it into question and downplaying what Keith has said, it makes the public think it's made up.

If he didn't intend for that to happen, IMHO, this sheriff needs someone skilled in public speaking to help him choose his words.

 

[Aeronomy]

IMO, the Sheriff is trying to run an efficient investigation on an extremely high profile case and is limiting the amount of information being released so that investigation can proceed smoothly and as quickly as possible. To say he just called Keith a liar is a low blow, IMHO.

Are you judging an opinion?

 

[bhh77]

Why does Shasta, CA ring such a bell? Didn't something else happen there that was in the news a few years ago? It sounds so familiar, but, my research isn't turning anything up.

Both the Ember Graham case and the Hannah Garner case involved that area. Ember Graham was the 6 month old baby that was reported missing by her father then her father went on the run and was killed in a police shooting. She has not been recovered. Hannah Garner was a missing teen out of Ashland Oregon who abandoned her car in Shasta City. She was found alive and well in Santa Cruz California a couple of months later.

 

[white rabbit]

I've said this on many other cases (Dylan redwine, deorr kunz, Isabel celis, et cetera et cetera) - let's not forget the human factor here. LE is not above realistic expectation of emotion. LEO's do not want to be wrong, as none of us do. IMO his "vague-ness" does come from 30 years of experience. this is not an episode of SVU where benson and stabler barge into a hospital room and demand answers. as far as we know, KP blocked his wife in and told bosenko that his wife was head-cropped, beaten, bruised and branded. which may very well be the case, but we have no idea of accuracy other than his statement. which could also be the reason bosenko is so evasive in his answers. "i was aware of the details" could simply mean he listened to what KP told him, not necessarily what he or other officers saw, first-hand...I don't WANT to be the naysayer/skeptic here but...I am. very happy the two little ones still have a mommy but other than that, until the truth comes out (for which i'm not optimistic) questions unanswered are bothersome and subject to sleuthing. IMO.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

In my opinion, he has just called Keith a liar.

He has seen her, his detectives have seen her, and either 1. Keith's assessment is true or 2. it's a gross exaggeration.

And the sheriff knows exactly which one it is.

And he's saying he can't vouch for the veracity.

I'm getting madder and madder. Do they have a professional spokesman at that sheriff's department? Either this guy has no idea what the effect of his words have on the public, or Keith is grossly exaggerating her condition. Which is a little hard to believe.

This could have been considered classified information, which Todd Kohlhepp knowing the injuries in the Superbike Murders established his confession as valid, which LE held onto those details for over a decade and by holding onto it knew that Kohlhepp wasn't just bragging. The Sheriff may be trying to do damage control as in any number of cases specific injury details are withheld, like there's still information withheld from the Missy Bevers case, etc.

 

[katydid23]

Did it say Keith actually wrote the statement or was it just released by him?
Weird I had completely different thoughts on it when I read it a second time from the first one.
I wish he had addressed what they are going to do with the $50,000 would be a nice ending to hear it is being given to a charity,

I wouldn't expect them to give it to a charity if she was a victim of a brutal crime. I am sure they lost a lot of money and are in debt at this time. He probably missed a lot of work , if he even went to work at all.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

The not confirming the veracity of the statements was written by the reporter, not a direct quote from the Sheriff. It seems like the writer took the liberty to say the Sheriff didn't verify the veracity because he said he stands by his original report and doesn't confirm (nor deny) KPs description. I think it's a non factor and that he's just trying to keep the same poker face.

Granted, this is a good point. I will still say that I find it odd he didn't simply confirm what Keith said now that the cat is out of the bag. All it is doing is fanning the flames and even the media are clearly pushing LE for more info/clarification.

 

[JDauxa]

Why does Shasta, CA ring such a bell? Didn't something else happen there that was in the news a few years ago? It sounds so familiar, but, my research isn't turning anything up.

Baby Ember Graham perhaps?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk