LaborDayRN
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 11,510
- Reaction score
- 52,217
LE specifically stated that nothing points to trafficking in this case.
Link please?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LE specifically stated that nothing points to trafficking in this case.
LE specifically stated that nothing points to trafficking in this case.
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.
LE specifically stated that nothing points to trafficking in this case.
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.
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.
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. 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?
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.
Does anyone know why the FBI isn't involved? Or why they haven't released any sorta sketch of the ladies
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.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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
Does anyone know why the FBI isn't involved? Or why they haven't released any sorta sketch of the ladies
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).