Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #21

[ElleElle]

Will the answer to this question solve the mystery? If so, how may I ask. Just curious of the relevance.

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

Again, this is a forum to ask questions. Why do you question what other members are posting?

The thought came to me, as I was thinking about the kids not being picked up that day.

No, it may not solve the case. I was just wondering if there was a reason why they were in daycare if was not outside the home for work.

And, I got my answer.

 

[Gardener1850]

I actually asked the banDana question because of the earrings. Can't remember where I read that Sherri saw earings
But I wasn't sure where the banDana discussion started

The younger one had pierced ears but we never heard whether she wore earrings or what style of earrings she wore.

 

[Logansden77]

It's the sheriff's syntax that troubles some, I think. Perhaps that's just the
way he expresses himself -- a very law enforcement sort of word choice.

Very law enforcement sort of word choice(s). But, at a press conference or in a statement to the press, at this time, would he say anything else? Even if there's a mass of evidence he has not released that shows different, would he be saying "At this time we don't believe a word she's said"? Of course not.

 

[Gardener1850]

If I were to list the items below in compiling a list of reasons for the event

sex trafficking
sex (other)
gang initiation
random grab
jealous rival
race-related
send a message
settle a score
kidnap/ransom
cult/brainwash
drug operation

what other ones -- within TOS -- would there be to add?

Yesterday someone suggested "fame" for the suspect(s) as a motive. (I don't agree, just adding)

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Very law enforcement sort of word choice(s). But, at a press conference or in a statement to the press, at this time, would he say anything else? Even if there's a mass of evidence he has not released that shows different, would he be saying "At this time we don't believe a word she's said"? Of course not.

Based on what LE hasn't done, I take whatever happened wasn't random. If there was a threat of random female joggers getting pulled off the street, LE would be saying so instead of just giving generalized safety advice. I don't think SP just happened to be by the mailbox when an SUV drove by and decided to pick her out of the blue.

 

[rsd1200]

Until this case, I have always assumed the words "kidnapped" and "abducted" pretty much meant the same thing.

.
I'd never really given it much thought but abductions don't ask for ransom, kidnappers do, so SP was an abduction. However, I think a lot of folks are like me, and would use the terms for either/or.

 

[Gardener1850]

Very law enforcement sort of word choice(s). But, at a press conference or in a statement to the press, at this time, would he say anything else? Even if there's a mass of evidence he has not released that shows different, would he be saying "At this time we don't believe a word she's said"? Of course not.

LE does say things to discount certain narratives, though. In the Rita Maze case, one of the investigators was asked if we should second guess Rita's kidnapping narrative and the LEO answered, "yes, you should." Then the FBI and LE continued to put out non-statements saying they had no new updates in the case. If the Sheriff in SP's case thought she was not being truthful about some part of what she was saying (like the descriptions of the perps) he has the option of either hinting to that by making vague statements about how her memory may have been affected by the trauma OR by refusing to issue any further statements at all. Instead, we have a sheriff that continues to say he believes her every time he is asked and even went so far as to CORRECT a report from Huffpost saying that his office had doubts (I won't use the H word). They didn't have to correct that. If they had doubts, LE could let the rumors fly (as in the Rita Maze case) and be quiet.

 

[Logansden77]

Based on what LE hasn't done, I take whatever happened wasn't random. If there was a threat of random female joggers getting pulled off the street, LE would be saying so instead of just giving generalized safety advice. I don't think SP just happened to be by the mailbox when an SUV drove by and decided to pick her out of the blue.

Agreed. So, if not random, then planned. If planned, there was a specific reason. The reason will be found from the areas I listed last night.

 

[rsd1200]

Will the answer to this question solve the mystery? If so, how may I ask. Just curious of the relevance.

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

I could see it being relevant. Someone could have been watching her pattern, what did she do on those days? Did she have any classes she attended? Who was in those classes? Did she volunteer those days? Who with? What was her routine those days? There's lots of questions that could come out of that. That's the day she was taken, when the kids were in day care.

 

[Logansden77]

"....since there is no new information on the alleged abductors that played a role in Sherri Papini’s kidnapping on Nov. 2, they have been unable to provide the public with sketches."

Don't think I saw this posted yet. From today's Record Searchlight: http://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2016/12/15/no-sketches-yet-papini-suspects/95497772/

 

[Dushi]

Bosenko said Papini reported she was abducted by two Hispanic women, who were armed and driving in a dark colored SUV. The younger of the women had long curly hair, pierced ears, thin eyebrows and a thick Spanish accent. The other woman was older and had straight black and gray hair, and thick eyebrows.


http://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2016/12/15/no-sketches-yet-papini-suspects/95497772/

 

[rsd1200]

I also noticed the bandana question came up again (banana discussion was a much needed laugh break!).

The reason I've mainly pictured that is base on the fact that she said they were masked but she could still see eyes, eyebrows, hair, and on one of them she even saw earrings. I can't think of all that many masks one would wear that would also allow those features to be visible. Plus bandannas could look somewhat normal if worn around their heads/hair or around their necks when not pulled over their faces. A masked driver and passenger would likely draw way more attention than two women wearing bandannas out in a rural area.

.
I ride motorcycles and I wear what some would call a bandanna, or a doo-rag, around my head and face, (mostly in cool weather), but the name brand of my favorite is a Buff. I was just thinking, they could have had those. You can wear them in lots of configurations. The way I wear mine most is over the head, and covering my mouth and nose. You can see only my eyes, eyebrows, and part of my forehead when I'm wearing it like that. Here's a link to the buff page and you can see the different ways to wear them. Some are even colored like bandannas. Mine is.

http://buffusa.com/shop-buff/motorcycle/aa0a0a0g0a?gclid=CM-g1eeO-dACFRc7gQodSeYGLQ

 

[robthomaseyes]

.
I'd never really given it much thought but abductions don't ask for ransom, kidnappers do, so SP was an abduction. However, I think a lot of folks are like me, and would use the terms for either/or.

there are many kidnappings without demands for ransom. As long as the person was taken forcefully, carried a considerable amount of distance, and held against their will, it's considered a kidnapping.

An abduction is very similar, but doesn't need the holding against one's will element.

 

[raja]

rsd1200
Do your earlobes show when you cover your mouth and nose with the buff?

 

[robthomaseyes]

a message to someone
to settle a score

But
to who? And to settle what kind of score? It would have to be something really bad to go to those lengths and risk incarceration for decades. You could be right, but it seems like a really drastic move.

 

[Dushi]

But
to WHO? And to settle WHAT score? It would have to be something really bad to go to those lengths and risk incarceration for decades.

To be perfectly honest, I have NO clue.
I am not certain the reason is even in that list

It seems to me, that her abductors were very careful about her not seeing them, which makes me think that the plan was always to release her
No matter what the reason for her abduction, and then release, the abductors went to great lengths and took great risks

 

[Gardener1850]

.
I ride motorcycles and I wear what some would call a bandanna, or a doo-rag, around my head and face, (mostly in cool weather), but the name brand of my favorite is a Buff. I was just thinking, they could have had those. You can wear them in lots of configurations. The way I wear mine most is over the head, and covering my mouth and nose. You can see only my eyes, eyebrows, and part of my forehead when I'm wearing it like that. Here's a link to the buff page and you can see the different ways to wear them. Some are even colored like bandannas. Mine is.

http://buffusa.com/shop-buff/motorcycle/aa0a0a0g0a?gclid=CM-g1eeO-dACFRc7gQodSeYGLQ

Huh. I had no idea a Buff was a name brand! I have only heard of them from the reality show Survivor. Thanks, I learn something every day on this site. That would be a good way to cover your face. I think the bandana conversation came up because someone mentioned that migrant workers in the area wear bandanas to cover their mouth and noses when working and would not draw attention if they drove around with bandanas around their necks. They could have just as easily worn something like a Buff and I think many people would think that is a bandana.

 

[lmadler]

If I were to list the items below in compiling a list of reasons for the event

sex trafficking
sex (other)
gang initiation
random grab
jealous rival
race-related
send a message
settle a score
kidnap/ransom
cult/brainwash
drug operation

what other ones -- within TOS -- would there be to add?

Thrill

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

 

[lmadler]

Again, this is a forum to ask questions. Why do you question what other members are posting?

The thought came to me, as I was thinking about the kids not being picked up that day.

No, it may not solve the case. I was just wondering if there was a reason why they were in daycare if was not outside the home for work.

And, I got my answer.

And please don't take offense. It was a real question. Someone else had said maybe to establish establish a pattern of predictable schedule. Not trying to offend. Was wondering how it might help to know the information.

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I could see it being relevant. Someone could have been watching her pattern, what did she do on those days? Did she have any classes she attended? Who was in those classes? Did she volunteer those days? Who with? What was her routine those days? There's lots of questions that could come out of that. That's the day she was taken, when the kids were in day care.

There's a big advantage between abducting someone off the road who could be noticed as instantly missing by kids at home and/or significant other versus knowing you could be hundreds of miles away that day before anyone notices SP is missing.