Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #22

[BayouBelle_LA]

You may all already know this, but somehow I missed it before. The offer of a $100,000 reward for information about SP's whereabouts was withdrawn exactly 24 hours before she showed up again. Weird!!

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dail...-share-joy-post-happy-photo-two-children.html

I read it as the offer was taken off the table for the kidnappers. It was then turned into a reward for information leading to Sherri.

 

[RANCH]

Ken said his son had always believed he'd bring his family back together.

Last week he promised their two children, Tyler four and Violet, two, that 'mommy' would be home by Thanksgiving.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dail...hanksgiving-promised-children-d-holidays.html



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the link. So Keith isn't quoted as saying any such thing. It's claimed that his dad Ken said he did. And later the article claims Ken says this.

'But we had planned to have a nice family Thanksgiving and none of us were allowed to mention it, we would only talk about forgiving and thanks. 'None of us imagined it might actually come true.'

The claim is although Keith told the children that "mommy" would be home for Thanksgiving, no one was allowed to mention it.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If the kids were already told this, why can't anyone mention it? JMO.
​

 

[kkdj]

I read it as the offer was taken off the table for the kidnappers. It was then turned into a reward for information leading to Sherri.

I remember this at the time it was happening. Even then I thought they had already made the deal with whoever had Sherri and that this "reward" suggestion was only to throw the public off. A red herring.

 

[kkdj]

Thanks for the link. So Keith isn't quoted as saying any such thing. It's claimed that his dad Ken said he did. And later the article claims Ken says this.

The claim is although Keith told the children that "mommy" would be home for Thanksgiving, no one was allowed to mention it.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If the kids were already told this, why can't anyone mention it? JMO.
​

Just parents trying to be good parents in a bad situation is my guess.

 

[RANCH]

Just parents trying to be good parents in a bad situation is my guess.

I'm thinking the same thing.

Keith's dad may have been embellishing things in an attempt to make his son look better to the public. JMO

 

[RANCH]

Okay. Another odd thing that I can cross off my list that points towards a hoax.

I have to admit that so far most of the things that I see posted as pointing towards a hoax are either ridiculous {dark roots} or weak like the "Thanksgiving Promise" that proves nothing. JMO

 

[Irishboy]

Perhaps she thought she was meeting up with someone she met on the internet and that person turned out to be some sort of a freak?
I don't know what the whole story is but I'm confident we aren't getting the whole story! LE releasing the info about communicating with a man (uninvolved with her disappearance), and then saying there might be (if they need to?) release of further information?
I'm trying to logically guess where this is going!
What would releasing info about a man she was communicating with, who had no involvement with her disappearance have to do with releasing (or not) anything else in the near future?
I'm stumped!

IMO this is getting warmer IDK that this would be pre-planned, none of the stories are consistent as if it was. It's like there are 3 parts - 1) SP is involved in something that likely not known by others and would not want to get out, 2) there is a planned encounter with person(s) for that purpose (not sex) clouded by the confusing timeline but some meetup that goes bad by amatuers, amatuers take her to get something back (money?) and drags out for 3 weeks while they figure out what to do 3) they don't want to kill her to escalate things and decide to dump her, then the cover up of part 1 starts.

 

[bears10]

Thanks for the link. So Keith isn't quoted as saying any such thing. It's claimed that his dad Ken said he did. And later the article claims Ken says this.

The claim is although Keith told the children that "mommy" would be home for Thanksgiving, no one was allowed to mention it.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If the kids were already told this, why can't anyone mention it? JMO.
​

Because if she didn’t come home, the family didn’t want to bring it up at dinner and make the kids upset? I think it makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bears10]

I'm thinking the same thing.

Keith's dad may have been embellishing things in an attempt to make his son look better to the public. JMO

Maybe it’s hereditary JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RANCH]

Because if she didn’t come home, the family didn’t want to bring it up at dinner and make the kids upset? I think it makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The whole premise is that Keith "knew" Sherri would be home by Thanksgiving in advance and he told the kids that so they could look forward to their reunion.

I don't agree with that Idea at all.

 

[kkdj]

Also, LE said there was no sexual assault. Is this because Sherri said there wasn't? Or was she checked?

I haven't seen anything stating there wasn't sex. Just not a sexual assault.

 

[kkdj]

The whole premise is that Keith "knew" Sherri would be home by Thanksgiving in advance and he told the kids that so they could look forward to their reunion.

I don't agree with that Idea at all.

But the children weren't reunited with her on Thanksgiving. From what I understood, she did not see her children for several days after she was found.

 

[RANCH]

Maybe it’s hereditary JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to protect the ones you love.

That's why I asked for a link to the "facts" that were being posted on this thread. So I can try and understand the context and meaning behind the words.

 

[RANCH]

But the children weren't reunited with her on Thanksgiving. From what I understood, she did not see her children for several days after she was found.

There you go, the "promise" wasn't even met. Nothing there with this at all. JMO

 

[bears10]

The whole premise is that Keith "knew" Sherri would be home by Thanksgiving in advance and he told the kids that so they could look forward to their reunion.

I don't agree with that Idea at all.

I never said that I agree that he knew she would be home by thanksgiving. I do think he knew about things in her life that she may have thought were a secret. But I don’t think he was a part of whatever happened that day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RANCH]

Also, LE said there was no sexual assault. Is this because Sherri said there wasn't? Or was she checked?

I haven't seen anything stating there wasn't sex. Just not a sexual assault.

I have a question.

If two women sexually assault another women,would there always be physical evidence of that assault?

 

[rsd1200]

It does. That's why I am not disbelieving the entire thing yet - just part of it. I think the truth is somewhere between the two camps of hoax and believers. Surely, there are some untruths here, but I think I believe she was held against her will even if she wasn't initially actually kidnapped in the way we have been told she was. I think she ended up unexpectedly paying for something. KP may or may not know exactly what that was at this point.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I think there's a mix in this too. I don't know what percentage, but it is an interesting case. Your box is full, btw.

 

[RANCH]

I never said that I agree that he knew she would be home by thanksgiving. I do think he knew about things in her life that she may have thought were a secret. But I don’t think he was a part of whatever happened that day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you think that Keith was part of a conspiracy in his wife's disappearance?

We know that LE confirmed he was at work when Sherri disappeared but that doesn't mean he didn't have someone abduct her. He passed a polygraph but those are so unreliable that they are almost never used in court.

On Wednesday, the Shasta County Sheriff's Office Major Crimes Unit said that Papini had been given a polygraph test earlier in the week. Police said he'd asked investigators about taking the test so they offered it.

The office said the results showed that "he has no involvement with the disappearance of his wife."
"Keith Papini continues to be cooperative in the investigation and is not a person of interest in the disappearance of his wife," police said in a news release. "Keith has talked with detectives on several occasions since he reported his wife missing. ... Sheriff's Office detectives have confirmed his whereabouts on the day in question and there is no physical evidence at this time suggesting he had any involvement."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/husband-mi...person-interest-authorities/story?id=43452638

 

[cluciano63]

I think she told them she was not sexually assaulted so why would they examine her? It is not a fun exam. And if she gave them no indication of needing one.

 

[kkdj]

I have a question.

If two women sexually assault another women,would there always be physical evidence of that assault?

I guess it depend on what was used to assault?