Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #17

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe not so strange. My hubby's company policy is ZERO tolerance for personal cell use during company time. Of course it doesn't stop the employees from doing it, they just know how to not get caught. But some of them do actually turn it off before clocking in. If they need to be contacted for an emergency, they can be reached through the company & paged.

Not saying this is his company's policy but it's certainly possible.

I think the point is that she would know this to be the policy. Was it an actual phone call or a text?
 
The balloon release was at 8 that morning, but 3:30 is kind of early for that. He also received 2 phone calls after he got up....missed the first one, second one was Sherri. JMO

The first one (phone call #1) as I understand it was also Sherri, on his cell-phone. I understood the second one (phone call #2) to be on the "house phone" indicating they have a land-line. This was per the 20/20 interview that aired Friday, December 2.
 
LE specifically stated that nothing points to trafficking in this case.

When did they say that? Because they also had no evidence it was an abduction back in the beginning too. She was 'voluntary missing' for quite awhile.
 
Maybe not so strange. My hubby's company policy is ZERO tolerance for personal cell use during company time. Of course it doesn't stop the employees from doing it, they just know how to not get caught. But some of them do actually turn it off before clocking in. If they need to be contacted for an emergency, they can be reached through the company & paged.

Not saying this is his company's policy but it's certainly possible.
j

Lol. It's Best Buy. I can't get people off their phones to help when I want to buy something!
 
When did they say that? Because they also had no evidence it was an abduction back in the beginning too. She was 'voluntary missing' for quite awhile.

Yeah... this is what I thought too.


And maybe they are being intentionally vague about who (organized crime or whatever) is suspected to throw them off so they are not thinking they're being hunted by LE? Just a theory of mine...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I dunno. It just seems like a weird place to be looking for "younger" girls in the middle of the day. Maybe if it was near a business district. But it was random. It does make me ask why those women were in that neighborhood...cleaning service? Day care providers? Floral delivery? I've not heard that anyone from le has spoken to neighbors.

They may not have been 'looking' for girls at the time. It might have been a crime of opportunity.

And there are a lot of RSOs and Grow Operations, and Meth dealers in Redding. Some may even live out in that area. I think the 2 women may have been in the area doing 'gang business' when they came across a pretty, petite blonde all alone on the roadside. They had a gun and some chains already in the SUV, so they impulsively kidnapped her. They may have been high on meth and stupid, as many criminals are.
 
This may have already been addressed so if it has, my apologies.

The timeline/events the morning she went missing is confusing to me.

KP last sees her just before 7
A neighbor who knows her, sees her out running right around 9
She texts KP at around 10:30 (IIRC) to see if he was coming home for lunch (which has been stated is odd, since he doesn't use his cell at work, and she knows that)
And then there's the partially wrapped gift left sitting there
And her phone & ear buds left a mile away by the mailboxes

Based on all that, it seems like she went out for a run, came home and started to wrap that gift, texted him and then....... then what? Went out for another run? Taken from home and had her phone put their by either Hispanic #1 or #2?

Maybe someone else can put this together because it doesn't fit for me. What am I missing?
BBM - Let me ask for clarification. Who said it was odd? Not Keith, as far as I know. Whenever he's mentioned it, in the course of describing what was out of the ordinary that day, he's never once said it aroused his suspicions.
 
That doesn’t surprise John Kelly, a noted serial killer profiler.

“This is going to take an awful lot of therapy, an anti-depressant, probably anti-anxiety medication,” he tells PEOPLE. “It will be very hard for her to navigate these traumatic waters.”

“It’s only by an act of God that they let her go,” Kelly says. “I have a hard time understanding that as sadistic as these [people] are — and I’ve hunted many of them — would let someone live.”

http://people.com/crime/sherri-papini-missing-2016-whats-next-investigation/

Maybe it was not the sadistic people that let her go.
 
Strange he has a cell but wouldn't even look at it during his lunch. What if something happened to the kids? Something DID happen to her.

There was a report about a possible sighting of her at the Shasta Mall at the eyebrow store at 12:45-1:30 pm. Not sure if it was her.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=105616&d=1480961932

Why would SP text a phone that KP doesn't normally bring to work? I wonder if that struck him as strange and out of the ordinary.
 
It's really not strange considering his line of work. He does installations inside homes. The times it takes to install varies. The location of the homes where he installs in varies.

Best Buy doesn't allow employees to take personal calls while at a customers home. It's unprofessional. So he most likely leaves his personal phone in his vehicle, and then checks it when he's done with an installation.

When there's an installation close to his own home, he probably goes home for lunch. My husband works a job where he is not allowed to use his personal phone unless he's not on a call. I text him throughout the day, knowing he'll respond when he gets the chance. I don't find this odd at all.

I got the info about Best Buy's rules from a poster that answered this question about 15 threads ago. ;) They worked for Best Buy.
 
When asked at a Wednesday press conference if Papini’s abduction might be related to a cartel or a sex trafficking operation, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko said, according to CBS, “We do not have specific information if it was related to a cartel or human trafficking.”

In a sit-down with The Today Show, Bill Garcia, who was hired by Papini’s family during the 22 days she was missing, told the show, “I suspect based on the types of injuries Sherri incurred, the beatings, the broken nose, the cut hair, especially the chains and the branding, indicate that most likely it was one of these sex trafficking groups.”


http://people.com/crime/investigato...-motive-behind-sherri-papini-kidnapping-case/

Saying they have no 'specific information' that it was cartel or trafficking, is not the same thing as saying there is no indication that it might be, imo.
 
BBM - Let me ask for clarification. Who said it was odd? Not Keith, as far as I know. Whenever he's mentioned it, in the course of describing what was out of the ordinary that day, he's never once said it aroused his suspicions.

When I asked VI yesterday if SP had sent the text to KP asking him if he'd be home for lunch, I think the response was that she didn't have any information on that. I'm wondering if the abductors sent that text to KP or had SP send it.
 
Could the morning text asking about lunch have been a signal that something was wrong? It's like having a code word to tell the alarm company when they call you when they get an alert. I don't mean this in any way negatively (my own husband-yes I call him my husband-wouldn't get it)-if SP knows he doesn't use his phone at work, was she expecting an immediate call back because it was not normal for her to do that? Maybe he isn't the sharpest tack in the box, and she was hoping he would get that "something was not quite right".
 
Saying they have no 'specific information' that it was cartel or trafficking, is not the same thing as saying there is no indication that it might be, imo.

The phrase "specific information," was chosen carefully IMO.
 
Why would SP text a phone that KP doesn't normally bring to work? I wonder if that struck him as strange and out of the ordinary.

My son has similar rules at work. He keeps his cell in his car or his desk and does not carry it around at his job. He looks at it occasionally and calls/texts his wife on his breaks.

If she had an emergency with their baby, she would call his boss and they'd radio him immediately. But if she wants to know about lunch or dinner plans, she texts him, and waits for him to reply.
 
My partner is in law enforcement and works in a precinct that is high crime, drugs and LOTS of prostitution. He works on a daily basis with human trafficking victims and the traffickers. When I told him about this case and that there is a theory that Sherri may have been trafficked he literally laughed. He said in his 11 years in this work he has never seen nor heard of a victim that matches Sherri's demographic. He has worked with our state government and the FBI on cases so he's not in some tiny town with little exposure to this crime. The only persons that come even close to that age group are women from other countries (mostly Asian in our part of the country) that have been brought here illegally for prostitution as well as domestic help. He mentioned that sadly, there are more than enough 17 year-olds with bad to no relationships with their parents and low self-esteem that can be talked into the trade then not allowed to leave. Almost never are people swiped off the street then turned out.
 
I would be curious to find out when exactly the branding was done during SP's captivity. How healed was it? SP might not of remembered exactly what day but I'm sure a doctor would be able to tell approx when it was done (Assuming it was sexual slavery) Was it done at the beginning to mark her in terms of ownership by her captors or was it done towards the end of her captivity as a humiliation/punishment type of deal? I am guessing that is one of the many things LE is keeping from the general public.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
 
My son has similar rules at work. He keeps his cell in his car or his desk and does not carry it around at his job. He looks at it occasionally and calls/texts his wife on his breaks.

If she had an emergency with their baby, she would call his boss and they'd radio him immediately. But if she wants to know about lunch or dinner plans, she texts him, and waits for him to reply.

I got the impression that he normally doesn't bring that cell phone to work, but she texted him on that one anyway.
 
My guess is the order of events didn't happen the way they are explained. I think the mutual friend of SP and CG's went to CG and asked for help, then he went to HIS church leaders (Bethel) explaining that this mutual friend approached him. The Bethel donor offered the money, and told him to go to KP with it. Or it's possible to money was offered anonymously to assist in her search, then KP suggested the ransom. Or CG did -however the ransom came up. JMO

Under either of those scenarios there would have been no reason for the blank between 11/6 and 11/17 and there's no reason for LJ or KP to lie about it as either way there's still anonymous donor without having to fabricate a story. That also wouldn't exactly show much urgency on KP's part to let the ransom offer be unreported with him sitting on his hands about it from 11/6 until he vouched for CG on 11/17 if he knew about it on or before 11/6. On the other hand the blank can be explained by CG going to the paper himself on 11/6, getting rejected and then going to LJ subsequently to get to KP who vouched for him resulting in publication on 11/17, which that's done without saying LJ and/or KP are making stuff up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
1,776
Total visitors
1,834

Forum statistics

Threads
602,094
Messages
18,134,597
Members
231,231
Latest member
timbo1966
Back
Top