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.
Idk. I would think it would go with the territory.
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.
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.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/husband-mi...person-interest-authorities/story?id=43452638
My guess would be no. There wouldn't always be evidence left behind.I guess it depend on what was used to assault?
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.
What are you talking about????? I literally said I dont think he knows what happened that day. I certainly dont think he had someone kidnap her. I think she was doing things behind his back and he had an idea something was going on. His reaction to her missing and finding her phone was just weird. Like he thought she left with someone or something. JUST MY OPINION and Im NOT saying I think he had anything to do with her disappearance bc frankly I dont believe he did.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
I stand by my post. There's nothing wrong with the intent that either of the men had IMO.I never said there was but youre really taking all of my posts out of context
ETA when I said maybe its hereditary, I meant them speaking dramatically
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did you read this somewhere? I thought we were wondering if she had told them she was not sexually assaulted. Did LE say she wasn't?
It’s in the recent statement
https://www.co.shasta.ca.us/docs/li...estigation-update---october-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
It's also possible Keith did promise his kids that she'd be home by Thanksgiving...
Then he immediately thought "WHY DID I JUST SAY THAT?!!?"
So they were not permitted to talk about it hoping the kids would forget it had been mentioned.
I reviewed the sheriff's press release.
The press release does not indicate she was emaciated. KP did. The press release does not indicate her hair had been "chopped off". KP said that. Instead, the press release states "her hair had been cut to shoulder length". The press release does not indicate she had injuries at different stages of healing. But I was sure I heard that in an interview. Anyone?
"Her right shoulder bore the burn marks of a crude brand, and her body was battered all over. "She had bruises in various stages of healing," the sheriff's office said in an internal October statement obtained by People, "indicating she had been physically assaulted multiple times over a period of time."
The People Magazine (print edition) 11/13/2017 w/ the SP cover story that arrived today states:
(p. 47 of this week's hard copy of People - last sentence of the first paragraph of the article)
Authorities also announced Wednesday that Papini had been branded on the back of her right shoulder. She was battered and she had bruises in various stages of healing indicating she had been physically assaulted multiple times over a period of time, according to a sheriffs news release.
It's also possible Keith did promise his kids that she'd be home by Thanksgiving...
Then he immediately thought "WHY DID I JUST SAY THAT?!!?"
So they were not permitted to talk about it hoping the kids would forget it had been mentioned.
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.
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
There you go, the "promise" wasn't even met. Nothing there with this at all. JMO
So it is not a direct quote. And he didn't say she'd return home ON Thanksgiving. He may have, according to a reporter, told his young children that their Mommy would return home by Thanksgiving.
I don't think that proves much of anything. When speaking to young children, pointing to the next upcoming Holiday is a normal way to discuss the future.
I don't think that means he KNEW his wife was going to return on Thanksgiving day. If he did 'know' that, why would he tell people? Why would he tell a magazine reporter about that if it was some secret about when his wife was returning?
There's a newsweek article that came out today that I can't access because I'm not subscribed. Has anyone seen it?
On Thanksgiving Day, KP told the kids he found her. I found mommy. It meets the expectation he had promised them. Whether we think its relevant or not, I guarantee LE took notice of it immediately.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.