GUILTY CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, fake abduction Nov 2016, ARREST MAR 2022 #25

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll shorten this up a bit - just wanted to put pertinent info on the first post.

Tuesday, March 8th:
*Detention Hearing (@ 2pm PT) CA - Sherri Louise Papini (34 @ time of crime/39), whose kidnapping (11/2/16) & sensational return on Thanksgiving day, 11/24/16 captured global attention, has been arrested & charged (3/3/21) with making false statements to a federal law enforcement officer & defrauding the California Victim’s Compensation Board of $30K. (Paid victim assistance money based on her kidnapping story. From 2017 thru 2021, Papini’s request for victim assistance caused approximately 35 payments totaling over $30,000, including for visits to her therapist & for the ambulance that transported her to the hospital after her return. No bond.
Long story short: Papini disappeared on 11/2/16 while she was out for a run near her home. The mother of two disappeared in Shasta County, about 215 miles north of San Francisco. Her phone, with headphones attached, was found alongside the rural road where she lived in the little community of Mountain Gate, north of Redding. Papini was found alongside Interstate 5 in Yolo County, about 100 miles from her home on Thanksgiving, 11/24/16. The sheriff’s office also gave additional details on Papini’s physical condition when she was found. Her nose was broken & she was wearing a chain restraint around her waist. Her blonde hair had been cut to shoulder length & she had a brand burned into her right shoulder. She had bruises on her face, rashes on her left arm and left upper inner thigh as well as other parts of her body, ligature marks on her wrists & ankles, burns on her left forearm & bruising on her pelvis & the fronts of both legs. Papini at the time gave a limited description of the two women she claimed held her captive for more than 3 weeks. The case was unsolved for years.
While at Woodland Hospital, Papini’s clothing was collected for DNA sampling, including her sweatshirt, sweatpants, socks & underwear. Papini told investigators that this was her original underwear from the day of her disappearance. The clothing was submitted to the California Dept. of Justice (“CA DOJ”), Bureau of Forensic Services (“BFS”), Redding Laboratory for processing. Mixtures of DNA consistent with Papini one male contributor who was not Husband were recovered from multiple cuttings taken from Papini’s underwear & one cutting taken from Papini’s sweatpants. The male contributor DNA to Papini’s clothing was uploaded to the Combined DNA Index System (“CODIS”), where they were routinely searched against profiles from case evidence as well as individuals in the database.
On 9/26/19, SCSO detectives submitted a letter to CA DOJ, BFS requesting a familial DNA search for the unknown male DNA contributor identified on PAPINI’s underwear. On 3/19/20, the CA DOJ Familial Search Committee voted to release a familial search result to provide analytical assistance in an effort to identify the unknown male DNA. On 3/19/20, the CA DOJ, BFS, Redding Laboratory received an email identifying Person 2 as a potential relative of the unknown male DNA contributor identified in Papini’s clothing. Person 2 had two living biological sons, one of whom was Ex-Boyfriend.
The investigation eventually showed that her account was fabricated & that Papini, who was married, had voluntarily stayed with a former boyfriend in Costa Mesa & had harmed herself to make her story convincing. Investigators have released new details in the mysterious case -including the discovery of male DNA on her clothing, even though the so-called “super mom” claimed her kidnappers were women. The Shasta County sheriff’s dept. said that investigators collected male DNA from the clothing that she was wearing when she was found. Female DNA also was discovered on Papini’s body. The samples have not been identified. According to the DOJ, in an interview conducted by a federal agent & a Shasta County Sheriff’s Office detective in August 2020, Papini was warned that it was a crime to lie to federal agents. She was presented with evidence that showed she had not been abducted. Instead of retracting her kidnapping story, Papini continued to make false statements about her purported abductors.
Ex-Boyfriend admitted to investigators that he helped Papini “run away.” Ex-Boyfriend explained that Papini was “a good friend” & she had asked him for help. Papini told him that her husband was beating & raping her & she was trying to escape. Papini told Ex-Boyfriend that she had filed police reports, but the police were not doing anything to stop her husband’s abuse. Ex-Boyfriend said “she had something planned up” & he was trying to help her get away from Husband & be a good friend. On Federal hold in Sacramento County jail.

3/4/22 Update: Papini, the Redding woman accused of faking her own kidnapping while she spent 22 days with an ex-boyfriend, appeared in court via Zoom for the first time Friday, and was ordered to remain in Sacramento County Jail until at least Tuesday afternoon. Papini, who was represented by Redding defense attorney Michael Borges, did not speak during her brief arraignment hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeremy Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. She faces charges of making false statements to a federal law enforcement officer and mail fraud. The maximum prison sentence is five years for the first charge and 20 years for the second. Each charge carries a maximum financial penalty of $250,000 and Peterson said she could also be required to pay restitution. Borges also argued for Papini's release on her own recognizance, but prosecutor Veronica Alegría countered that the allegations against Papini show she is a flight risk. Peterson set a detention hearing for 2pm Tuesday, 3/8/22 & a preliminary hearing for 2pm on 3/18/22.
 
I was a huge proponent of giving Sherri the benefit of the doubt like anyone else and to be honest I still can't understand why she was overwhelmingly doubted here while other "victims" of dubious credibility (mostly addicts) are not.

However, now that the "phoned in tip that Sherri had been staying with an ex-boyfriend in Los Angeles" has officially been verified its pretty obvious to be what went on (and I suggested it as one possibility before)

<modsnip - off topic>

I can say with near certainty that Sherri is torn between her more rational desires to have a picture perfect husband and family versus her instinct to be with extremely masculine men and in her case resisting those instincts for too long caused them to "boil over" and she indulged in completely irrational and extreme domination with only a vague idea of how it would play out in the long term.

<modsnip>

We do see this sort of case from time to time (q.v. Madelyn Allen) but Sherri here is the grown *advertiser censored* woman fully realized version of it. These situations are ones that the law is poorly equipped to handle as we can see the charges seem odd and it took forever for law enforcement to figure out exactly what kind of charges should be filed and on what grounds. Am I seeing the ex that she was staying with is being detained in Los Angeles on a Federal hold?

I really would like to know what exactly he was supposed to do when he started seeing the news reports that she'd been kidnapped while he's got her consensually tied up and bruised in a boarded up back bedroom. Supposedly he should just have immediately called the police and explained what was going on but he knows that she's going to claim it was all against her will. She was obviously very careful not to leave any evidence of her arrangement either, I suppose using a burner phone and maybe even on that phone using language that could appear to have been a third party arranging the kidnapping so even if the ex presented his side of the conversation it would not necessarily contradict the story she intended to tell police in that particular eventuality.

Yes, yes this would certainly be an interesting story if it ever were to be told completely and in detail. Ordinarily it wouldn't because once she is finally convinced that she's caught she'll flip like a switch and take whatever punishment she can to keep it out of public record (we already saw this with her behavior immediately following release) but it's the year 2022. If I were that ex I would already be offering the book I'd written to every publishing house and wondering if the movie version would make it to theaters or just Netflix.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just imagine how she went to the therapist and lied session after session,
knowing she was fooling the therapist, and continuing on with it over
a period of time--If I was the therapist, now learning it was all a ruse
and lies, and that I bouught it all, I might consider finding another
profession-- will the tberapist ever trust another patient??
Most therapists are very smart people and deal with this type of behavior every day. I strongly doubt the therapist bought her story (moo). LE was already gathering evidence and the therapist’s job is to help SP. I am not going to dig into California law, but I believe the therapist only has to report to LE abuse of a child or murder?

I don’t think we need to assume the therapist believed anything she said. Jmo
 
Running off to be with your ex-boyfriend and pretending to be kidnapped is one thing; all those self-inflicted injuries take it to a whole new level IMO.
Agreed, and the damage she inflicted on her poor children and family members is outrageous. SP has some very serious mental health issues IMO.

Do you think SP has a history of questionable childhood behavior also?
 
Most therapists are very smart people and deal with this type of behavior every day. I strongly doubt the therapist bought her story (moo). LE was already gathering evidence and the therapist’s job is to help SP. I am not going to dig into California law, but I believe the therapist only has to report to LE abuse of a child or murder?

I don’t think we need to assume the therapist believed anything she said. Jmo
California has what's called the Tarasoff rule that covers a psychotherapist's duty to warn. You can read some professional discussion of its changes and various implications here

July/August 2005 Monitor on Psychology

In this case I believe it would not apply because it requires a credible threat of serious physical injury which I doubt has ever been Sherri's intent.
 
I'm doubting the judge is going to let her out on her own personal recognizance, or promise to appear, since she has a lifelong history of lying. As a matter of fact---that's what she's in there for in the first place LOL.

Any guess as to how much her bail is going to be? What's normal in California for her type of offense and character history?

I wish I knew! I don’t know federal criminal law.

Not Any "Significant Trace?" Help Me Understand.

"Toxicology results did not show any significant trace of 3 narcotics in PAPINI’s system at the time of her return..."*

Anyone? Thx in adv.

___________________________
* page 6 (hardcopy page #), lines 2 -3.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/press-release/file/1479901/download

I think there is a measurable amount level that shows if someone is under the influence or ya been recently. I guess there wasn’t enough to show that. But there may have been some traces, which could be from various sources?
 
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article259188623.html

MARCH 08, 2022 10:15 AM
Sherri Papini will appear before judge this afternoon for decision on her pre-trial release
Sherri Louise Papini is expected Tuesday afternoon in Sacramento federal court, where her attorneys will argue that the Redding woman — accused of fabricating her November 2016 kidnapping and then lying to the FBI about it — should be released from custody after spending a weekend in Sacramento County Main Jail. Papini, 39, was arrested at her Shasta County home Thursday by FBI agents and spent the night in the Sacramento County Main Jail after being booked at 7:38 p.m. As is routine for new inmates, she was placed into a 14-day COVID-19 quarantine.
 
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article259188623.html

Tuesday’s hearing will begin at 2 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. Peterson also set a preliminary hearing for March 18, and Alegria said prosecutors were hoping to obtain an indictment against Papini before that date. Papini is charged in a 55-page federal criminal complaint with one count of making false statements and one count of mail fraud. The charge that she lied to the FBI during interviews could net her five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The wire fraud charge, which stems from her receipt of $30,000 from the California Victim Compensation Board for therapy, ambulance services and window blinds for her home, could result in up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article259188623.html#storylink=cpy
 
I’m calling it now - Sherri will use jail as an excuse to engage in another self-inflicted harm - anorexia. And blame others.

Because that’s what she does. I wonder if any of the jailers are Hispanic women with big hoop earrings. Keep walking Sherri.
yup said the same upthread. lol!!! more attn.
 
Agreed, and the damage she inflicted on her poor children and family members is outrageous. SP has some very serious mental health issues IMO.

Do you think SP has a history of questionable childhood behavior also?

Mother of Sherri Papini claimed in 2003 police report daughter hurt herself

The mother of Sherri Papini — the California woman who told police two women kidnapped and held her hostage for weeks — went to police 13 years ago and told them Papini was hurting herself and blaming it on her mom, according to a report.

The Shasta County Sheriff's Office in December 2003 recorded the two-sentence incident report filed by the mom, Loretta Graeff, according to the Sacramento Bee, which acquired it after multiple requests.
 
26. Release And Detention Pending Judicial Proceedings (18 U.S.C. 3141 Et Seq.)

Factors Judicial Officer Must Take Into Consideration Regarding A Defendant's Eligibility For Release:
When making a determination regarding the eligibility of a defendant for pretrial release (whether personal recognizance , unsecured appearance bond, or release on conditions), the judicial officer must consider the factors listed in Section 3142(g), including:

  1. the nature and circumstances of the offense (in particular whether it is an offense which is violent or nonviolent in nature, or involves narcotics);
  2. the weight of the evidence against the person;
  3. the history and characteristics of the person --
    1. character -- including physical and mental condition), family ties, employment, financial resources, length of time in the community, community ties, past conduct history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, record of court appearances; and
    2. whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and
  4. the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or to the community that would be posed by the person's release.
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). In addition to considering evidence of the factors set forth above, the court may upon its own motion, or upon the motion of the government attorney, conduct an inquiry into the source of any property to be designated for potential forfeiture or offered as collateral to secure any bond. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4). If the court determines that any such collateral or property, because of its source, will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required, the designation or use of the collateral or property as security for a bond shall be refused. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4).

More at link...
 
Therapist's Tarasoff Duty?
California has what's called the Tarasoff rule that covers a psychotherapist's duty to warn....
July/August 2005 Monitor on Psychology
In this case I believe it would not apply because it requires a credible threat of serious physical injury which I doubt has ever been Sherri's intent.
@evilwise sbm Thanks for your post.
Afaik, Papini has/did not cause therapist to believe or predict that she "posed a serious risk to an identifiable victim."

Judicial Notebook--Tarasoff reconsidered
Scroll waaay down on Table of Contents to
"JUDICIAL NOTEBOOK Tarasoff reconsidered"
 
Therapist's Tarasoff Duty?
@evilwise sbm Thanks for your post.
Afaik, Papini has/did not cause therapist to believe or predict that she "posed a serious risk to an identifiable victim."

Judicial Notebook--Tarasoff reconsidered
Scroll waaay down on Table of Contents to
"JUDICIAL NOTEBOOK Tarasoff reconsidered"
I left that part out because from my reading and that article it remained unclear to me if self-harm would be included in that definition. Is the patient themself a "victim"? In the state I live in the equivalent law is more clear that it does mandate reporting of credible threats of self harm.

In Sherri's case though, I don't think she ever intended to seriously injure herself. Only injure herself just enough to gain the sympathy of her actual intended victims, whose injuries are not physical
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
4,336
Total visitors
4,462

Forum statistics

Threads
602,593
Messages
18,143,393
Members
231,454
Latest member
ColeTyler
Back
Top