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

[LaborDayRN]

LE specifically stated that nothing points to trafficking in this case.

Link please?

 

[Tricia]

Please stop trying to guess the identity or anything else about our Verified Insider.

Know this person has been vetted. If you choose not to believe our Verified Insider that is your choice and I respect that choice. But please stop with the all the guessing about our VI.

Thank you very much,
Tricia

 

[creepcrusher]

LE specifically stated that nothing points to trafficking in this case.

Not in those words. They were very careful with their wording. They have NOT ruled out trafficking. They said they were looking into it, along with other theories.

 

[Dak]

Do you have a link?

Detectives have interviewed Papini over the past two days at an undisclosed location, Bosenko said in a Wednesday afternoon news conference in Redding."The interviews were very intense for both the investigators and for Sherri, due to her having to relive this traumatic event," the sheriff said. "She was cooperative and courageous during the interviews."
The motive remains unknown, and it's not clear if Papini was specifically targeted or if it was a "random abduction," the sheriff said.
Investigators don't have any information that the abduction was related to a drug cartel or human trafficking, he said.

http://ktla.com/2016/11/30/captors-...ini-by-branding-her-cutting-hair-off-sheriff/

 

[Gardener1850]

LE specifically stated that nothing points to trafficking in this case.

Do you have a source for this? I only remember them refusing to make any guesses as to motive.

ETA: never mind I see you answered above. That quote doesn't seem to rule out trafficking, IMO.

 

[10Rose]

Exactly. Ruling him out based on a lie detector test makes no sense to me. Lie detector tests are incredibly unreliable, which is why they are not admissible in court. To rule someone out based on a lie detector test is like ruling them out for correctly calling "heads" on a coin flip.

That's not all they ruled him out based on.

 

[Niner]

Exactly. Ruling him out based on a lie detector test makes no sense to me. Lie detector tests are incredibly unreliable, which is why they are not admissible in court. To rule someone out based on a lie detector test is like ruling them out for correctly calling "heads" on a coin flip.

I believe the Sheriff said KP's alibis checked - like - he was at work... not just going/relying on his lie detector test.

 

[Dushi]

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/

 

[skibaboo]

I believe the Sheriff said KP's alibis checked - like - he was at work... not just going/relying on his lie detector test.

Yes. If you google 'KP cleared' (use full name) there are dozens of articles that state just that. Alibis checked out, poly passed. Cleared as a suspect.

Why is the media seemingly attempting to put that in doubt? Interest drying up by any chance?

 

[Gardener1850]

Have you read the Daily Beast piece on CG from 12/5? It is excellent investigative journalism. And just FYI, my degree is in Journalism and I'm not easily impressed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I've read it. You are entitled to your opinion. I was not impressed and that is my opinion.

 

[Dushi]

Yes. If you google 'KP cleared' (use full name) there are dozens of articles that state just that. Alibis checked out, poly passed. Cleared as a suspect.

Why is the media seemly attempting to put that in doubt? Interest drying up by any chance?

Yes, i think interest is drying up IMO

 

[soanyway]

Where was it stated that KP was ruled out based on the LDT only? LE has much more evidence that would've been taken into account before making a public statement.

Exactly. Ruling him out based on a lie detector test makes no sense to me. Lie detector tests are incredibly unreliable, which is why they are not admissible in court. To rule someone out based on a lie detector test is like ruling them out for correctly calling "heads" on a coin flip.

 

[darring21]

Does anyone know why the FBI isn't involved? Or why they haven't released any sorta sketch of the ladies

I don't believe it falls under their jurisdiction. They investigate child abductions and abductions across state lines (and bank robberies and other stuff), but an abducted adult within the state is given to state and local law enforcement. Now, they do assist with certain aspects, like electronic forensics, and probably have in this case. At least, that's the way I understand it.

 

[sumzero]

Have you read the Daily Beast piece on CG from 12/5? It is excellent investigative journalism. And just FYI, my degree is in Journalism and I'm not easily impressed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The article includes no statements from people who support CG and the work he claims to do. Either they didn't want to hear from those people to provide balance or they deliberately excluded their statements. The article also makes a false claim about Criminal Justice Services. There is, in fact, such a department in California.

https://oag.ca.gov/careers/descriptions/cjis

Sure reads like a hit piece to me (and I have no particular sympathy for CG).

 

[Gardener1850]

You make a good point. As for the DB article, it reads like a tabloid "hit piece" more than anything else. Not that CG hasn't opened himself up for criticism, because he has. Still, he makes an easy target and good click bait, IMO.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

I don't have the exact quote handy but LE did explicitly state that no other people had been mentioned by SP besides the two Latina women.

Do you have a link please?

 

[spiritseeker31]

Lake16

Sent from my 5017B using Tapatalk

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Personally, I consider the Daily Beast to be a blog and not a valid source of news. Since the anonymous donor never identified themselves how would the DB verify they spoke to them and not some random person claiming to be the donor?

Because they said it was from the same email address as in the ransom offer and BTW they say 'alleged' donor as they're not exactly agreeing that donor existed in the first place.

I also don't think the money is the same money as what the donor was offering. The money was being withdrawn to use for search efforts and for other things for the family before CG did his video. But those are just my opinions.

ABC was establishing the timeline saying that KP didn't authorize it until after about $50K was raised, which would contradict the 11/6 ransom offer letter.

It just feels a little too unbelievable to me that CG would make up some elaborate anonymous donor angle when he could just offer to be a hero and claim he was putting up the money himself. Everyone seems to think he is very egotistical and I see that as well which is why I don't believe he would make up a 3rd party if there was a chance to take complete credit for the idea all on his own. MOO. :moo:

You really think anyone would believe him if he claimed to have high six figures in cash just lying around gathering dust?

 

[natsound]

Does anyone know why the FBI isn't involved? Or why they haven't released any sorta sketch of the ladies

Are we sure the FBI is not involved?

 

[manormuskeg]

The article includes no statements from people who support CG and the work he claims to do. Either they didn't want to hear from those people to provide balance or they deliberately excluded their statements. The article also makes a false claim about Criminal Justice Services. There is, in fact, such a department in California.

https://oag.ca.gov/careers/descriptions/cjis

Sure reads like a hit piece to me (and I have no particular sympathy for CG).

Well, that's confusing. The Daily Beast article stated that there was no federal agency by that name. Your link doesn't have that explicit title either.