Ha! I came onto my computer to share an observation after having been following the case via cell phone in fits and starts (real life keeps interfering, darn it). I'd intended to brush Cameron aside in the process, but having now looked at several news pages seeking citations, I don't think I will, quite yet.
I've generally felt that CG is simply an opportunist who was fortunate enough to be available when opportunity arose. Grandiose, maybe, even creepy maybe, but some of that creepiness may be due solely to the nature of his business.
What has kept niggling at me is the "anonymous donor." Anonymous to whom?
I wondered why anyone not connected with the Papinis, and not seeking approbation, would want to put up a large sum of money. Ransom money isn't tax-deductible. No church or organization has been given credit. If the funds were financed, they would be traceable, and therefore not anonymous to authorities. There is plenty of cash in the marijuana business in Northern California, but the donor was said to be from outside of the area. (England?!)
Then the word "gambit" popped into my head. I wasn't sure exactly what a gambit is so I looked it up: it's a chess opening where a player sacrifices a piece in the hope of achieving an advantageous position later on. Interesting.
Or maybe it's just someone with a heart of gold? I doubt it, but it could be. Problem is, the large ransom offer just makes it harder for the next family unable to get such a benefactor on board.
As to that, while searching for an MSM cite I found this interview with LJ and CG, published on Nov. 30 (
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/cameron-gamble-speaks-about-sherri-papinis-return/192865005). Following the interview the newscaster comments that "they" would like to use "this"(?) to help other families. "We made history," says Cameron. But is the "anonymous donor" always going to be there?
That video further confirms that LJ got CG involved and that her "online effort" attracted the anonymous donor who put up much [not all?] of the money. "And it was an incredibly large sum of money -- six-figure, no dollar amount -- let your imagination ride on that," says Lisa. Huh? I thought it was first $50,000 then upped to $100,000. My imagination takes those amounts in easily, but maybe it's just me?
And, says Lisa, Sherri was freed within 24 hours. (CG stumblingly comments that "no money exchanged hands at any point in time.")
Meanwhile, my initial impetus to write was based on a curious feeling I got reading KP's statement following SP's return and my noticing something at the time that made me think hmmmm. It didn't make me think of a hoax, but it did suggest some complexity behind closed doors -- doors closed to us sleuthers. As a retired writer/editor I did note multiple "voices." (
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/sh...-statement-since-his-wife-was-found/190962819)
E.g., Sherri is variously referred to as "our Sherri," "my Sherri," "our girl," and "my wife." I'm of course doing mind-reading here but I can't believe that Keith would refer to Sherri as "our girl." My mind-read? -- That that was likely father-in-law Rod Rodriquez, reasonably enough as a close family member. I don't have much in the way of citation for him, but I've read his name a lot and saw that he responded to the Thanksgiving Day 911 caller on Facebook, saying We greatly appreciate your assistance. (
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article117110028.html) He does seem to be the "papa" of the family.
Well, at this point I'm thinking that either the money was imaginary per CG or the funds were possibly made available or put up by Rodriguez or an associate of his to help his family. Which would be fine -- I have an uncle who'd do that without making waves. But one way or another I'd sure like to put this issue to rest. And of course if it was Rodriguez who helped arrange the ransom/reward, that would be of no help to future families.