Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #6

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
They took quick action because they knew as the hours ticked away, the chances of this gal being alive diminished. I would have done the same thing. It was a bold move.

But who is 'they'? This is supposedly being financed by a 'he' who is visiting town. If this was something that some rich guy out on town for business does, why haven't we heard this done before in other cities? It's not like there isn't new missing people all the time all over the country.
 
We know she didn't respond, as LE has stated all activity on her phone stopped around noon.

So whatever happened could have occurred before noon. That could make the 2:00 PM sighting someone other than Sherri or the witness has it confused with a previous day.
 
Anybody know if perhaps another update coming on her disapearance?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
At this point these gathered elements have grown to resemble a dustbin of flaming malarkey.
 
Let's say she did have a stalker or even perhaps some disgruntled customer she sold something to... After several Google searches etc there is a website that lists a phone number and address for her and also for her husband. There is even a year and make/model of a car attached to this information. The Internet is creepy.
 
So whatever happened could have occurred before noon. That could make the 2:00 PM sighting someone other than Sherri or the witness has it confused with a previous day.
I keep thinking the 2pm sighting must be wrong/mistaken, but for some reason it's the one LE and all the missing posters are sticking with. Maybe 2pm was more than a sighting, maybe she stopped and talked with someone?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
I keep thinking the 2pm sighting must be wrong/mistaken, but for some reason it's the one LE and all the missing posters are sticking with. Maybe 2pm was more than a sighting, maybe she stopped and talked with someone?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Have they really though? I know it was mentioned early on by LE, but I remember it being strangely absent in later LE interviews and people pointed that out.
 
They took quick action because they knew as the hours ticked away, the chances of this gal being alive diminished. I would have done the same thing. It was a bold move.
I personally would not want this side show anywhere near my missing family member. More people are talking about this than Sherri (smoke and mirrors).

And judging by the "note" to LE that's been added to the ransom letter the sheriff's office isn't happy with it either. Why piss off the people working with the fbi that might actually be able to help you?

I'm convinced there is nothing good or right about the ransom letter and I'm 100% confused why Keith would meet with the person in charge and approve this plan.

Jmo.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
I agree, it's just strange to use the wedding pictures so much because they are so old. I saw on the blog from the wedding photographer dated 11/17/2009. That's seven years and two babies ago! Even if you don't gain weight, there will still be changes to your facial features and hair. They have shown ones of her and husband/kids vacationing looks like and yeah she looks different especially in the face. Is it just to tug at our heartstrings more? Or because they know people will look more if it's a pretty girl?

About the fliers with wedding photos--is this an assumption or do you know for a fact that these were prepared by family? I don't know myself, which is why I ask.

I do know that non-family members have been making online fliers as a way to help get the word out. I've also seen where such ones give permission to the family to use their creation.
 
At this point these gathered elements have grown to resemble a dustbin of flaming malarkey.

You always have such a way with words, always make me chuckle!

The old/non make up photos things an interesting one. She probably wouldn't have had her face on to go for a jog right? So newer not made up pics would make more sense?! But then maybe if she had taken the kids to daycare she woulda
 
I agree that's likely someone else in the photo of the jacket, first thing I thought when I saw it. I don't understand those critiquing the pics that show her smiling and happy (as that's how the family wants her portrayed). Of course she's going to be smiling. Surely, they wouldn't choose the most mundane pics. The driver's license pic of her not smiling drew people saying she looked unhappy, despite the fact that most DL pics are not flattering or happy.

IMO, the family is showing younger pics because they do not have makeup. If they suspect her to be abducted, either by traffickers or another psycho, she's probably not wearing makeup. There was a pic on one of the threads showing her with red hair, it was unrecognizable to me. A woman's appearance can be altered so dramatically. Fortunately, she has beautiful blue eyes that would be noticed. But I don't understand why a short video isn't released. I'd be much more likely to recall a person's voice, laugh, or mannerisms which can't be shown in pics.


Interesting observations about the photos. I think it's actually really common for family to release older pictures in cases like this. They choose their favorites where their loved one looks their best. I admit I was sort of bothered that the flyer floating around on social media featured her in her wedding dress because I know that was several years old and nobody looks as good as they did on their wedding day in their daily lives. That said, I went looking for some more recent pics in the media and found a few where we can tell how old they are by the age of the kids. Her kids are currently 2 and 4.

<modsnip>

Based on the size of the youngest child I'm guessing these photos are only about a year to year and half old. IMO, Sherri still looks young for her age here but she is wearing makeup. You can see a few more wrinkles but she is every bit as lovely.

As far as the jogging outfit where the head is cut off I assumed they did that because the person wearing the jogging outfit in the photo is NOT Sherri. Sherri bought and sold clothes on a site called Poshmark. Maybe they never had a picture of Sherri in this exact outfit but they have the ad from the person she bought the jogging top from and that is why they used that photo the way they did. The person who posted the ad might have even posted the photo that way to begin with as it is common to do that when selling things on the internet. Just a guess.
 
I personally would not want this side show anywhere near my missing family member. More people are talking about this than Sherri (smoke and mirrors).

And judging by the "note" to LE that's been added to the ransom letter the sheriff's office isn't happy with it either. Why piss off the people working with the fbi that might actually be able to help you?

I'm convinced there is nothing good or right about the ransom letter and I'm 100% confused why Keith would meet with the person in charge and approve this plan.

Jmo.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Same, and the only reasons I can come up with are overwhelming desperation, possibly combined with misplaced trust (some people can be very persuasive), and a few other ideas best left unmentioned.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/94057732/?client=ms-android-uscellular-us

If this has already been posted, hopefully this can be deleted because I don't want to waste anyone's time. I'm on my crappy phone due to pc problems, so I don't have the facility to post sections. In this article, the LE addresses the "ransom" letter. Also noted is that the FBI has been helping with cellular technology, etc. It seems there is fresh material out this weekend, bringing with it, of course, a bevy of colorful comments.
 
<modsnip>

If the hostage offer was going to produce a result, it would have by now, or will shortly. Sadly, I speculate the Perp has nothing to deliver at this point.

Speculation and opinion only.
 
Is it just me or does no one else think this "kidnap ransom" thing is off the wall??? Who is this guy? Why is he focusing on Sherri? DOes he think this is a movie and Mel Gibson is lurking around the corner? I mean really, I find the whole thing totally bizarre and DISTRACTING to finding Sherri.
 
Is it just me or does no one else think this "kidnap ransom" thing is off the wall??? Who is this guy? Why is he focusing on Sherri? DOes he think this is a movie and Mel Gibson is lurking around the corner? I mean really, I find the whole thing totally bizarre and DISTRACTING to finding Sherri.

If the ransom was paid and Sherri returned - then I would be even more suspicious.
 
Or the 2:00 witness is hiding something.


So whatever happened could have occurred before noon. That could make the 2:00 PM sighting someone other than Sherri or the witness has it confused with a previous day.
 
Is it just me or does no one else think this "kidnap ransom" thing is off the wall??? Who is this guy? Why is he focusing on Sherri? DOes he think this is a movie and Mel Gibson is lurking around the corner? I mean really, I find the whole thing totally bizarre and DISTRACTING to finding Sherri.

I think it's awesome. LE appears to have been doing bupkis, and having a private citizen providing an incentive is fantastic. For all we know the donor is a serial do-gooder. I wish there was more of this. Hurrah!
 
Rewards should be the province of law enforcement, working with the family; and must not include into the equation rogue members of the general public, who may in fact be operating with uncertain expectations, motives, and means.

This can create cross-purposes.
.
.
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
2,128
Total visitors
2,213

Forum statistics

Threads
599,867
Messages
18,100,458
Members
230,942
Latest member
Patturelli
Back
Top