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

[natsound]

What he has to say is that there is evidence of an abduction. Saying there is no evidence that there was not an abduction is not the same thing.

I agree. Bosenko is choosing his words carefully. That's not unusual for a PIO.

 

[creepcrusher]

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

Me too. I think many others feel the same.

 

[Gardener1850]

Why would he not believe it though. Do LE usually say that in kidnapping cases, just because some people on the Internet were disbelieving. Would the LE pander to the public or did they release conflicting stories/ideas in the first place? Were they not sure at first? Say somebody got kidnapped/tortured in Iraq, for example, the LE wouldn't keep iterating that we believe the victim is telling the truth. It wouldn't even cross the publics mind that it was a lie.

Yes, LE does sometimes cast doubt on stories. They did with the Rita Maze story. There was also a case posted here in other threads (sorry I forget the names) where a women was abducted and released a few days later and LE accused the woman and her boyfriend of making the whole thing up. It turned out she was actually abducted and after her abductor was arrested and charged she pressed charges against the police for saying she was lying. That case could be why LE would be more careful of accusing people of lying but it would not explain the continued statements of belief for what SP has said. If LE did not believe any part of SP's story they could simply stop making statements and let the public hash it out. Instead, they continue to make statements that they believe her. The most recent statement also said this case was "high priority"--meaning even though they are not giving US (the public) any new info they are still working hard on the case.

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/sh...aid-papini-case-still-high-priority/212230817

 

[john's mom]

So you are saying you want him to use the word "evidence"? Is that what you mean? Because a few of those statements don't use the word evidence but he flat out states she was abducted (as if it is fact) and he says they are basing their belief of her statements on "info we've received". Here are the statements:

Nov 29 2016 Interview with People:
“But keep in mind too she had been abducted,” he says. “We don’t have any reason not to believe her. She was abducted held captive for three weeks and then released. Traumatized from the experience and then of course very emotional about being released and then being reunited with her husband.”

http://people.com/crime/sheriff-reve...disappearance/

Nov 30, 2016
"The interviews were very intense for both the investigators and for Sherri, due to her having to relive this traumatic event," Bosenko said. "She was cooperative and courageous during the interviews. She described a sequence of events to the best of her recollection. Remember, that she was held against her will and was isolated."
…
Sheriff Tom Bosenko said that investigators have no reason to doubt Sherri Papini's story, adding that they are looking for two Hispanic women armed with a firearm driving a dark-colored SUV.

http://www.kcra.com/article/sheriff-...i-case/8384152

Dec 2, 2016
Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko is disputing a Huffington Post story posted late Friday that cites an unnamed source in his department as saying a hoax is not being "ruled out" in Sherri Papini's kidnapping investigation.
"Based on information we have, there's no reason to believe this is not legitimate," Bosenko said. "Since speaking to Papini, based on information we've received, we believe her. We believe that this was an abduction."

http://archive.redding.com/news/loca...404372706.html

JMO, but it's it even stronger of a statement for him to flat our say "she was abducted" and "we believe this was abduction" than to say "there is evidence of an abduction". "Evidence" can be faked or staged or misleading. He is flat out stating she was abducted and they believe her based on information they have.

There was a missing woman, a young mother in Elizabeth NJ about a year or two ago. Story was that she left home,10 or so at night to walk to a drugstore a couple miles away, for baby's medicine. There was not much in the local news, but the police did say they had questioned her husband and he was cooperating and they believed him. Then nothing at all. A few weeks later they arrested him for murder after they found her body a few towns away in an empty house. So police do say things they want to say. Even if they are not true.

 

[lmadler]

I haven't read or followed this case, just read about what is posted here. I think that this was just about humiliation of a woman. She was pretty, blond, thin, had a good life, husband, home and liked her lifestyle. We live in a very political, us vs them time right now. The cutting of the hair, is to humiliate, to brand someone is to disfigure them for life with a humiliating message. I think she represented everything that those women were not. Or wanted to be. I think it was a hate crime. JMO

Very plausible

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

 

[thirdfrombottom]

There was also a case posted here in other threads (sorry I forget the names) where a women was abducted and released a few days later and LE accused the woman and her boyfriend of making the whole thing up. It turned out she was actually abducted and after her abductor was arrested and charged she pressed charges against the police for saying she was lying.

Denise Huskins abducted by Matthew Muller

https://cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/arrest-warrant_complaint-sealed.pdf

Pending Lawsuit

https://www.scribd.com/doc/305827265/Complaint-Huskins-Quinn


Contrary to those who said he acted alone, two other UNSUBS were never found, nor indicted. Yes, Matt used a tape recorder. However, others were involved but never caught.

 

[Bettylou4you]

I haven't read or followed this case, just read about what is posted here. I think that this was just about humiliation of a woman. She was pretty, blond, thin, had a good life, husband, home and liked her lifestyle. We live in a very political, us vs them time right now. The cutting of the hair, is to humiliate, to brand someone is to disfigure them for life with a humiliating message. I think she represented everything that those women were not. Or wanted to be. I think it was a hate crime. JMO

I don't know. In this charged climate, anything remotely resembling a hate crime would be exploited as topic number 1 by all involved. Also, who has 22 days to invest in making a point like that? It would have been a stressful full time job for whomever was keeping her. A big investment. It would have also been clear to SP what their motives were, if it was that personal they would have told her why they were doing it, not letting everyone try to figure out the motive. police would know this and there would be more public awareness for other people fitting the demographic. IMO

 

[Gardener1850]

There was a missing woman, a young mother in Elizabeth NJ about a year or two ago. Story was that she left home,10 or so at night to walk to a drugstore a couple miles away, for baby's medicine. There was not much in the local news, but the police did say they had questioned her husband and he was cooperating and they believed him. Then nothing at all. A few weeks later they arrested him for murder after they found her body a few towns away in an empty house. So police do say things they want to say. Even if they are not true.

But did they say it repeatedly over the course of several weeks or only say they believed him once? It sounds like they made the statement once and then said nothing while they investigated? That would be pretty common. Saying someone is cooperating is SOP. Saying repeatedly that LE believes SP sounds like they either really believe her entire story or they are trying very hard to convince someone they believe her entire story. I could possibly see that--if she described a different perp from what was released and her family is still in danger from that perp and LE is closing in on that perp but they want the public to believe LE still thinks it's two Hispanic women...maybe...but it seems like a HUGE risk to the public trust to lie that many times in order to catch a perp. Especially for an elected official. He is putting his reputation and position on the line every time he speaks about this. If he has any doubts it would be in his best interest to not say anything rather than flat out saying they believe her. There are many details they have withheld--they have said so. They could just keep saying "no comment due to the on going investigation" and leave it at that.

 

[Cannonball3804]

I wanted to see how consistent the Sheriff's statements had been, so I put together a list of every interview I could find where the sheriff said he believes SP is telling the truth, along with the dates he said it and the links:

Nov 27, 2016

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...ted-no-reason-to-disbelieve-her-story-w452535

Nov 28, 2016

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...alif-mom-sherri-papini-dead-article-1.2889960

Nov 29, 2016

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sheriff-co...ls-sherri-papinis-condition/story?id=43840556

Nov 29 2016 Interview with People:

http://people.com/crime/sheriff-rev...mom-found-after-early-november-disappearance/

Nov 30, 2016

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article117934978.html#storylink=cpy

Nov 30, 2016

http://www.kcra.com/article/sheriff-to-discuss-new-details-in-sherri-papini-case/8384152

Dec 2, 2016

http://archive.redding.com/news/local/Shasta-County-Sheriff-disputes-hoax-story-404372706.html

Dec 9, 2016

http://people.com/crime/sherri-papini-missing-2016-timeline-abduction-return/

Dec 14, 2016

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/sh...aid-papini-case-still-high-priority/212230817

His statements seem consistent to me and the sheriff has not backed off on any details of the story. How many ways does he have to say it before others believe SP as well?

Does anyone remember a recent quote from Bosenko in which he says there continue to be "concerns that we have". I've tried to find it and cannot. But I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining it. Specifically remember the "concerns that we have" phrase.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rsd1200]

It would be extremely difficult quickly getting "high six figures" in cash. If someone for instance sold their house for 'cash' a 'cash' transaction on a house doesn't actually involve the buyer having a Brinks truck arrive with bags of cash, but instead what that means is that the buyer doesn't have to go through a mortgage company that may disprove the loan, but instead would wire the funds to their account without risk of a mortgage company rejecting the deal. Short of high level drug deals, there's few ways you can quickly get hundreds of thousands of dollars in actual physical cash rather than in a check or wire transfer.

.
I agree, it would be, but, if you are a wealthy individual, then there's a good chance that six figures is not that uncommon to have around. Also, if you have toys worth six and seven figures, you can sell them off cheap, for cash, or get a quick lien on them. You don't have to sell your house if you're well off and you don't have to worry about your credit if you are fairly well off. Now, if you are living on the edge, you're kidnapped family member is s.o.l.

 

[Deleted member 718]

Dec. 9: In a story in this week’s PEOPLE, on newsstands Friday, Sheriff Bosenko says authorities have no reason “not to believe” Sherri. But he says investigators are still looking for anyone connected to the capture — and they are still looking for a reason why. “Abductions are rare in themselves, especially adult abductions,” Bosenko says. “On top of this, being two women [who Sherri described as her captors] is even more unique, so there remains a number of concerns that we have.”

http://people.com/crime/sherri-papini-missing-2016-timeline-abduction-return/

 

[thirdfrombottom]

Does anyone remember a recent quote from Bosenko in which he says there continue to be "concerns that we have". I've tried to find it and cannot. But I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining it. Specifically remember the "concerns that we have" phrase.

http://people.com/crime/sherri-papini-missing-2016-timeline-abduction-return/

<modsnip>

 

[SpanishInquisition]

.
I agree, it would be, but, if you are a wealthy individual, then there's a good chance that six figures is not that uncommon to have around. Also, if you have toys worth six and seven figures, you can sell them off cheap, for cash, or get a quick lien on them. You don't have to sell your house if you're well off and you don't have to worry about your credit if you are fairly well off. Now, if you are living on the edge, you're kidnapped family member is s.o.l.

Having high six figures in the bank would be common, but not in physical cash. You can have art, cars, etc worth six and seven figures, but good luck having a Brinks truck with bags of money arrive to pay for it rather than it being done through check or wire transfer. Getting a lien of sizeable amount would be with a check, like maybe you could get a title loan for a few grand where they'd be willing to pay you in cash but you're not going to go to some legitimate non-criminal lending company where they have hundreds of thousands of dollars just sitting around ready to hand out in physical cash to buy or put a lien on property. Maybe a loanshark would front you the money in cash, but not some legitimate business.

 

[robthomaseyes]

The term "kidnapping" will vary throughout the u.s. jurisdictions so I'd not put much stock on who is using which term, tbqh. I use the term kidnapping, personally, however, there was no ransom, I think they intended to always release her back to her spouse. However, it's not really going to bother me if someone calls it an abduction.

Under
California law, there is no ransom element required to establish kidnapping.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-kidnapping-laws.html

 

[robthomaseyes]

Me too. I think many others feel the same.

To
the lay person, they are nearly interchangeable. In a court of law, however, there are differences (even if slight).

It's like shoes and boots. You can interchange them to a point, bu t in the end, all boots are shoes, but all shoes are not necessarily boots.

 

[bears10]

Having high six figures in the bank would be common, but not in physical cash. You can have art, cars, etc worth six and seven figures, but good luck having a Brinks truck with bags of money arrive to pay for it rather than it being done through check or wire transfer. Getting a lien of sizeable amount would be with a check, like maybe you could get a title loan for a few grand where they'd be willing to pay you in cash but you're not going to go to some legitimate non-criminal lending company where they have hundreds of thousands of dollars just sitting around ready to hand out in physical cash to buy or put a lien on property. Maybe a loanshark would front you the money in cash, but not some legitimate business.

I really don't think it's that outrageous for someone to have 100k in physical cash. Lots of businesses and industries still bring in a lot of green cash, especially construction. So it wouldn't be far fetched for a business owner to have that kind of money to front. Not even just a business owner. Idk, Maybe it's just where I'm from, but you wouldn't need a Brinks truck for 100k.

 

[rsd1200]

Under
California law, there is no ransom element required to establish kidnapping.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-kidnapping-laws.html

Ok. The sheriff has called it both. Call it what you want. I'll most likely use the term kidnapping, I realize it is probably wrong, but, I mean no ulterior motive by using the term kidnapping. It's not a slam against the sheriff, other LE, nor SP. I mean it only to mean, that someone took her against her will.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I really don't think it's that outrageous for someone to have 100k in physical cash. Lots of businesses and industries still bring in a lot of green cash, especially construction. So it wouldn't be far fetched for a business owner to have that kind of money to front. Not even just a business owner. Idk, Maybe it's just where I'm from, but you wouldn't need a Brinks truck for 100k.

LJ makes it sound like way more than $100K, like closer to $1 million:
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/cameron-gamble-speaks-about-sherri-papinis-return/192865005
Also for $100K you absolutely would need a Brinks truck so you're not robbed if you're going to out with it physically deliver a payment. Payrolls for instance used to get robbed when they were in physical cash, but these large sums of money aren't stolen any more like that is that the opportunity is no longer there where things are done by check and wire instead. There are a variety of cash businesses - my parents used to own a nightclub for instance - but aside from your daily float, you try and get the cash in the bank so you're not robbed and otherwise making yourself a target. With the Mansion Murders - where the CEO owned a construction business - the most amount of cash he was able to quickly pull together was $40K and that was from a rich guy in construction who was trying to get money to pay a ransom on his own life and the life of his family.

 

[Sillybilly]

Heads up everyone. Did a little tidy-up and some posts suggesting political motives have been removed. Discussion of race, religion, politics, orientation, are against TOS ... for very good reason. Websleuths cannot fix all the social injustices in the world, and veteran WSers know what happens when anyone brings the word "politics" into the mix. The discussion goes downhill very quickly.

If you wish to refer to possible motive in this case as simply a "hate crime", that's fine. Just don't let politics enter into the discussion.

Trust me !!

 

[rsd1200]

I really don't think it's that outrageous for someone to have 100k in physical cash. Lots of businesses and industries still bring in a lot of green cash, especially construction. So it wouldn't be far fetched for a business owner to have that kind of money to front. Not even just a business owner. Idk, Maybe it's just where I'm from, but you wouldn't need a Brinks truck for 100k.

.
I know people who operate only in cash. One fella messed up another guy's property, nearby, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars with some equipment he ran through it, while working on his own place. It finally went to court and the guy who was in the wrong, walked into the courtroom (To look at the guy you'd think he was poor as Job's turkey) and laid a brief case on the table, opened it up, asked if the other fella if that would cover it? The other guy checked it out, agreed, and walked out with a briefcase full of cash. It's not as uncommon as you think. There are people who do not trust banks, or keep money in safes at home, and at the bank. jic. Also, people will buy six figure and seven figure toys, for cash, off of people who sell them for a fraction of their cost, just wanting quick cash. It doesn't always have to go through a bank to get quick money or a lien. Another rich friend can help with that too. Wealthy folks tend to know other wealthy folks.