Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #16

[soanyway]

It's not just CG, it's his wife, the mutual friend....all of whom have become targets of accusations that have no merit. Just because a person doesn't appear likable or genuine to someone, doesn't make them guilty of any involvement. I'm not directing this at you, and I do understand the sleuthing. But I don't understand how people can discredit one's background based on facts from an erroneous article. Irreversible damage can be done to innocent people by spreading baseless rumors. I also see LJ taking so much criticism for defending SP & KP and now for connecting the family with CG (not just here).

There are obviously things that are hinky with CG. It does not mean at all that he is a terrible person. I've known lots of people who are relatively harmless but like to overstate their own importance. But people are here to sleuth, so obviously those inconsistencies about him are going to come to light.

 

[skibaboo]

It is well known that any time there is a crisis, be it 9/11, Katrina or a kidnapping, in addition to all the well-meaning people that come out to offer whatever help they can, all sorts of other people (hucksters, con-men, sales reps) come out of the woodwork as well with less pure intentions. Whatever the case, please don't assume conspiracy. It's many steps removed from someone with questionable motives to someone up to no good, to someone who is outright criminal, to someone who is colluding with others to get away with something.

Oh yes. Fear is the number 1 seller, scared people will spend a lot of money so they feel safe, the media and govt know this. JS, Some people see an opportunity and want to make a difference, some see an opportunity and want to make a fast buck, some think it's a good career option that incorporates a bit of both. Yikes I said opportunity a lot there and not one time did I spell it correctly. Thank you spell check.

 

[AlwaysAStory]

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.

 

[eucalyptuz]

I thought of another. Abigail Hanna broke into the house of a couple she used to babysit for, abducted their toddler then dumped her in the road the next day, beaten, with head shaved and covered in cigarette burns.

Yes, but that case was surely an exception to the rule. Additionally, the perp in that case had a connection to the victim, she acted alone and was possibly sectionable.

The number of cases where a victim walks away from multiple perps - and was released not escaped or otherwise rescued - and lives to tell the tale, well, it's almost unheard of...

SP has been incredibly lucky
AND the perps were so far out of their depths that murder was beyond them (or never even on the cards in the first place)
OR the perps so ignorant/oblivious of consequences or perhaps so confident in escaping detection that they let Sherri walk despite possible DNA/trace/witness/CCTV evidence...

I really can't fathom the motive but still I come here to lurk...

 

[Essex]

I saw that quote regarding "our girl" (from the GMA article, I think?) as well and found it curious too, but I had attributed it to poor reporting, probably being a quote from another family member that was mistakenly attributed to KP. He doesn't seem to refer her that way elsewhere, so KISS principle says to me that it was just an editing error.

 

[AlwaysAStory]

Okay, that was overlong. My underlying point is that maybe we are (I am) trying to fit together pieces that can't be fitted together. There was the abduction/kidnapping. There's CG's involvement following the abduction. There's the anonymous donor. Maybe those are three chunky bits that can only be loosely mixed together -- that came together in time but have little or no shared history.

 

[Sillybilly]

Please do not post MSM pics or discuss or speculate on an undisclosed location of where the Papinis may be.

Also, JG is off-limits.

:tyou:

 

[Walker007]

Can someone tell me the "position" the husband holds at Best Buy? The reason why I am asking is because I am wondering if he could have been involved with breaking up or catching any form of theft from the store?

After I thought of this last night. I asked my friend who used to work at Best Buy if he ever experienced catching any thefts or rings and how that would look. He said yes, in fact a ring was caught at his time there. He said they have a "asset protection" and a "loss prevention" department. Different stores call them different names according to him. He said there was a coordinated ring working through his store. I am not being racial but repeating what he told me and he has no knowledge of this case. He first mentioned to me that Hispanic females using baby strollers to take/steal/stash merchandise, he said there were also males involved. Ultimately, the ring leader was an American Male. They were all caught and apparently this was going on for awhile.

If the husband had this experience in any fashion and upset some form of criminal acitvity, I would add this to the list of possibly motives. Revenge, retaliation. Leading to the suffering and victimization including the humiliation and more. Hope this makes sense, I am on my phone.

 

[Walker007]

I saw that quote regarding "our girl" (from the GMA article, I think?) as well and found it curious too, but I had attributed it to poor reporting, probably being a quote from another family member that was mistakenly attributed to KP. He doesn't seem to refer her that way elsewhere, so KISS principle says to me that it was just an editing error.

Mine says "How's our girl" to me all the time. Just a form of expression when you have kids.

 

[creepcrusher]

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.

I could easily see Rodriguez lll being the anonymous donor. It reminds me of something my father would do for me without wanting me to know. If it was him IMO his intentions were pure, and out of desperation. He wanted to bring SP back, and was willing to try whatever it took- legally.

LJ was close to Sherri, and a mutual friend of CG and Rodriguez lll. She probably came to one of them with the idea out of desperation and then they got together and came up with the ransom.

Looking at it this way makes it way less difficult to understand with less obstacles to jump through.

If Sherri's family (the victims,) and LE isn't pointing the finger at CG, then neither am I.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tlcya]

The Shady Hostage Negotiator at the Center of Sherri Papini’s Abduction
Cameron Gamble came out of nowhere, supposedly at the request of an anonymous donor, to find a vanished woman. He’s not the expert he claims to be.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-the-center-of-sherri-papini-s-abduction.html

just getting home and caught up. More and more lately the daily beast is being cited as MSM and I have seen it used on other cases recently. Members will have to give this article as much or as little weight they feel is appropriate.

A reminder: the paremeters of discussing CG continue to remain at his qualifications and his involvement in this case.

No sluething his personal life, no sleuthing his wife's social media (she is not the public personality who became involved in this case as the hostage negotiator)

 

[AceDetective]

The only reason I recall that even coming up is because in her wedding blog she mentioned never having lived with a guy before; yet, by that time we'd located the info about her first marriage. So then we began to wonder if the first marriage was even known by those in her inner circle.....and then, how'd she marry in the Catholic Church if she was divorced? Questions that were raised but have gone unanswered.

I've answered that last question many times now. I've been learning to tighten up my language, though. I like to 'speak' in hyperbole, but it seems people jump all over that...

As succinctly as possible:
In general, a divorced person, whose previous marriage wasn't Catholic, can easily get an annulment from the Catholic Church.

---

I almost hate to mention it, but we don't actually know she was married in the Catholic Church. I have seen no proof. We know she planned to, because it said in her wedding blog that she was taking the preparation course. But there has been no proof here yet that it went through. It could have ended up being a non-Catholic wedding.

 

[cady]

Rodriguez III would seem to be the logical anonymous donor, except for the weird letter telling LE basically to back off and for the fact that CG said anonymous donor had left town to celebrate Thanksgiving with his family, after having been on a business trip in Redding. Perhaps anonymous is someone that RodriguezIII knows, though. JMO

 

[SpanishInquisition]

It's not just CG, it's his wife, the mutual friend....all of whom have become targets of accusations that have no merit. Just because a person doesn't appear likable or genuine to someone, doesn't make them guilty of any involvement. I'm not directing this at you, and I do understand the sleuthing. But I don't understand how people can discredit one's background based on facts from an erroneous article. Irreversible damage can be done to innocent people by spreading baseless rumors. I also see LJ taking so much criticism for defending SP & KP and now for connecting the family with CG (not just here).

The biggest thing regarding CG is that he's intimately tied to some alleged anonymous donor who offered vast sums and through multiple versions of the story, it's this unknown person that got CG hired. The validity of the ransom offer is rather important, yet an attempt to establish it's validity failed on 11/6 so it instead came out later around 11/17 with KP vouching CG rather than CG ever establishing the validity of the ransom funder. If there was no ransom funder, there would be no way for CG to be a ransom negotiator because he'd have nothing to pay a ransom with. Plus on top of that we just learned in the MSNBC interview that he was out of town much of the time this was going on, which would further complicate a ransom negotiation if you're out of town and you've made up that you have lots of money ready to go, unless of course you know that you can be out of town and without ransom cash because you'll never get that call to do a deal.

 

[unsomnambulist]

Here is what concerns me about Cameron Gamble: at best, he's an opportunist trying to gain fame through the Papini's misfortune.

To topline what stood out to me from the Daily Beast expose on him:

He did not reply to the Daily Beast's requests for interviews. Yet, the "anonymous donor" did. There is no evidence that I could find, anecdotal or otherwise, that suggests the anonymous donor could not be CG himself.
Project TAKEN bills itself as being a non-profit, and even formerly boasted about obtaining non-profit status, but none of the online databases can confirm this (the state of California makes it very easy to confirm whether a company is a legitimate non-profit).
He claims the "reverse ransom" technique has never been used before. Except, of course, in the movie "Ransom" itself, where Mel Gibson's character "flips the script" and His "company" is called Project TAKEN which advertises to be "an elite group of individuals that have acquired a certain set of specialized skills" which sounds similar to the catchphrase from the movie "Taken" where Liam Neeson says, "What I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career." Coincidence?
"Gamble said his course had 'recently been accredited by the Department of Criminal Justice Services,' but no such federal agency exists."

And, while I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but the church Gamble associates himself with, Bethel Church, was the subject a Christianity Today in depth article looking at whether the church was a cult or not.

Of course, there is also the the timing of SP being released the day after Gamble made the dramatic video announcement saying the ransom money would be used for tips to find SP, but that alone doesn't make Gamble appear to have any connection of the SP disappearance... just someone who was trying to financially gain from it.

 

[creepcrusher]

Rodriguez III would seem to be the logical anonymous donor, except for the weird letter telling LE basically to back off and for the fact that CG said anonymous donor had left town to celebrate Thanksgiving with his family, after having been on a business trip in Redding. Perhaps anonymous is someone that RodriguezIII knows, though. JMO

I'm going to guess that that part of the letter was a fabrication to get the abductors to release her asap. JMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[matou]

Just putting this here because I didn't see it quoted unless I missed it. It stood out to me from the Daily Beast article:

But the alleged anonymous donor told The Daily Beast that he picked Gamble as a hostage negotiator, after a family friend of the Papinis put him in touch.
Using an anonymous email set up for Papini’s recovery, the donor defended his tactics, using language similar to what Gamble said in his video when talking about potential tipsters.
“These people are also felons, drug addicts and people with warrants out for their arrest that aren’t going to go to the police with the hopes of getting reward money,” the donor wrote. “Offering these people CASH without them having to reveal their identity is attractive.”

The DONOR contacted the Daily Beast? Why? I don't remember a previous article from them about this case. The donor used an anonymous email? Why? Why does it matter now who this person is? The Daily Beast is insinuating that Gamble and the donor may be the same person or someone who is close to him.

Hope this case is solved soon.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-the-center-of-sherri-papini-s-abduction.html

 

[bluesneakers]

Here is what concerns me about Cameron Gamble: at best, he's an opportunist trying to gain fame through the Papini's misfortune.

To topline what stood out to me from the Daily Beast expose on him:

He did not reply to the Daily Beast's requests for interviews. Yet, the "anonymous donor" did. There is no evidence that I could find, anecdotal or otherwise, that suggests the anonymous donor could not be CG himself.
Project TAKEN bills itself as being a non-profit, and even formerly boasted about obtaining non-profit status, but none of the online databases can confirm this (the state of California makes it very easy to confirm whether a company is a legitimate non-profit).
He claims the "reverse ransom" technique has never been used before. Except, of course, in the movie "Ransom" itself, where Mel Gibson's character "flips the script" and His "company" is called Project TAKEN which advertises to be "an elite group of individuals that have acquired a certain set of specialized skills" which sounds similar to the catchphrase from the movie "Taken" where Liam Neeson says, "What I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career." Coincidence?
"Gamble said his course had 'recently been accredited by the Department of Criminal Justice Services,' but no such federal agency exists."

And, while I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but the church Gamble associates himself with, Bethel Church, was the subject a Christianity Today in depth article looking at whether the church was a cult or not.

Of course, there is also the the timing of SP being released the day after Gamble made the dramatic video announcement saying the ransom money would be used for tips to find SP, but that alone doesn't make Gamble appear to have any connection of the SP disappearance... just someone who was trying to financially gain from it.

In another time he would have been selling snake oil.

JMO

 

[daninillinois]

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.

Nice post.

On one detail: CG said 11/17 that the a.d. was going to leave Redding in a couple of days on his next business trip. CG said 11/23 that the a.d. had already left Redding to be with family on Thanksgiving. So if we know whether RR did one or the other or both of those things in that time frame—or not—we would know if he was the a.d., assuming CG is truthful.

Hey, if you’re an editor who thinks about writers’ voices, let us know what you think about the voice of the a.d.'s 11/6 letter to the perps that was sent to the TV station, and whether it sounds like anyone else’s voice. That would be a really big help to us, I think.

 

[cady]

Here is what concerns me about Cameron Gamble: at best, he's an opportunist trying to gain fame through the Papini's misfortune.

To topline what stood out to me from the Daily Beast expose on him:

He did not reply to the Daily Beast's requests for interviews. Yet, the "anonymous donor" did. There is no evidence that I could find, anecdotal or otherwise, that suggests the anonymous donor could not be CG himself.
Project TAKEN bills itself as being a non-profit, and even formerly boasted about obtaining non-profit status, but none of the online databases can confirm this (the state of California makes it very easy to confirm whether a company is a legitimate non-profit).
He claims the "reverse ransom" technique has never been used before. Except, of course, in the movie "Ransom" itself, where Mel Gibson's character "flips the script" and His "company" is called Project TAKEN which advertises to be "an elite group of individuals that have acquired a certain set of specialized skills" which sounds similar to the catchphrase from the movie "Taken" where Liam Neeson says, "What I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career." Coincidence?
"Gamble said his course had 'recently been accredited by the Department of Criminal Justice Services,' but no such federal agency exists."

And, while I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but the church Gamble associates himself with, Bethel Church, was the subject a Christianity Today in depth article looking at whether the church was a cult or not.

Of course, there is also the the timing of SP being released the day after Gamble made the dramatic video announcement saying the ransom money would be used for tips to find SP, but that alone doesn't make Gamble appear to have any connection of the SP disappearance... just someone who was trying to financially gain from it.

THANKS SO MUCH! and WELCOME!!!!