Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #23

[rsd1200]

Wow just wow! You cannot do any of this in the UK!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, that just ain't right, but, they are allowed to do so, and this is why I tell everyone, I don't care what it is, if you're being brought in to be questioned about something, the only thing you should say, is, "I want an attorney." That's it. Period.

 

[gitana1]

My grandparents had a full ceremony on their 50th wedding anniversary. They had married during the depression at a courthouse and grandma had always wanted a "wedding". It was the most magical thing I've ever seen.

Their grown children and their spouses stood by their sides as grooms and bridesmaids and they were surrounded by many generations of family all the way down to great grandchildren serving as the flower girls and ring bearing boys.

The church was packed with so many friends and family it was just wonderful. Grandpa died unexpectedly a year later so it's a memory we all cherish. Even my kids now in their 30's still bring it up on occasion..."Remember when great grandpa and grandma got married?"

Aww. My mom and dad wanted to do that. They just had a church wedding (eloped) with my uncle and one friend. My dad got sentimental and wanted a vow renewal. He died before they could do it.

 

[Stripehaven]

Is your Facebook name inthedetails&husband? I also this this is very generational. I’m a little younger than SP and KP and it’s very very strange in my experience to have a couple share a social media account, especially one that has both their names on it. In our generation it comes across a certain way. Meaning there is no trust and/or someone is controlling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm 64 and it strikes me the same way. Ditto shared email accounts. I know I'm generalizing.

 

[rsd1200]

On the financial front, I think it's got to be significant that SP lost her job at the end of 2015, a job that probably paid her upwards of twice as much as KP made. How does a family compensate for losing 2/3 of its income? That's potentially a huge stressor/trigger, and it happened less than a year before the disappearance.

That is very tough. That's a huge dent to try and absorb. No way she was filling that gap with etsy sales, either. Money problems can be very difficult on a marriage.

 

[rsd1200]

Does anyone remember or know why she lost her job with ATT? Was it a downsizing thing or personal? Or did she quit? I seem to recall that she worked in Humboldt County part of the time, which would involve almost three hours to drive from Redding to Arcata.

ETA: Here’s the source for my Humboldt County recollection.

http://kymkemp.com/2016/11/07/two-h...lieved-by-family-to-be-abducted-near-redding/

I've wondered about that Humboldt County connection. It says she had "links" to the county from sometime "working" there but it doesn't say what she did.

 

[Inthedetails]

Is your Facebook name inthedetails&husband? I also this this is very generational. I’m a little younger than SP and KP and it’s very very strange in my experience to have a couple share a social media account, especially one that has both their names on it. In our generation it comes across a certain way. Meaning there is no trust and/or someone is controlling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No - we're not cutesy with a shared name. My FB is mine alone, with people close to us knowing they can reach my DH through my social media as he has essentially no online presence. I realize that is different than the Papini's but felt defensive when people were making judgements in general, not just about this case, based soley on shared FB page.

 

[Lilibet]

I've wondered about that Humboldt County connection. It says she had "links" to the county from sometime "working" there but it doesn't say what she did.

If her job involved visiting AT&T retail stores, I figured that she may have had to visit a couple of stores in Humboldt monthly or every couple of weeks. There is one in Arcata and one in Eureka. With the six hour round trip drive on 299, that would be an eight hour day give or take. That would give her “links” to the county from being there some of the time. JMO

 

[rsd1200]

If her job involved visiting AT&T retail stores, I figured that she may have had to visit a couple of stores in Humboldt monthly or every couple of weeks. There is one in Arcata and one in Eureka. With the six hour round trip drive on 299, that would be an eight hour day give or take. That would give her “links” to the county from being there some of the time. JMO

That makes sense. She doesn't look like someone who'd work in marijuana, but, you never know.

 

[Lilibet]

That makes sense. She doesn't look like someone who'd work in marijuana, but, you never know.

Yes, the way it was worded sounded a little too mainstream for her to be a parttime trimmer, especially in foggy “methed up” Eureka. Garberville would be a different matter.

[FONT=&amp]Sherri did have a job over the last few years that brought her into Humboldt County,” Totten said. “She worked for a company that had a branch in Eureka. She would travel from Redding to Eureka every so often to work here for a short time.” Even though Papini no longer works for the company, that is a connection to this area, Totten said.

[/FONT]http://kymkemp.com/2016/11/07/two-h...lieved-by-family-to-be-abducted-near-redding/

 

[gitana1]

This is why I kinda let my friends and family nudge me into a "real" wedding on the 2nd go round. My first one, we eloped, and I'm sure we all left quite the impression. (A couple friends drove us, and stood as witnesses.). It was not unlike something out of a Nat'l Lampoon movie (srsly). So, when the second one came around, I thought it would make my parents happy, and it would be fun, when the topic was broached. Being raised Full Holiness Pentecostal, though, the preacher wouldn't marry us!! However, because both our families had attended the same church, for so long, they did allow us to use the church, but we had to find another pastor/justice of the peace. A pastor who taught chapel, on occasion, where I worked, agreed to do the speakin' parts. It was fun, I admit, after all was said and done.

My cousin did what you and I did. She ran off and got married, too. Her mother was livid. Her Momma wanted that wedding, so, a full, blow-out, wedding they did have! lol

Bethel church which is connected to this case and has kind of taken over Redding has Pentecostal roots. It's a charismatic church. Very interesting to me.

Thank god she was found! Prayers to her and her family.

She was found a year ago.

Is anyone watching Dr. Oz
TODAY???

Inside NXIVM: The Self-Help Group Where Women Are Branded and Recruited As Slaves

http://blog.doctoroz.com/oz-experts...ere-women-are-branded-and-recruited-as-slaves


[video=twitter;932992286622920705]https://twitter.com/DrOz/status/932992286622920705[/video]

MOO

Yeah. There's been discussion about this. The brand for them is on their lower abdomen above their hip. Weird cult though.

Just chiming in to say not to judge shared accounts! My husband has NO interest in any social media, but he has a fake-name FB account because that's how his sport league communicates. When it comes to family stuff on FB, I show him interesting photo or status updates from family, but he doesn't really care to keep up with people that way. If long-distance family members want to reach him, they send me a message either through FB or email and then I tell him. (If anyone wants to reach him without going through me, they can call....but not many people make phone calls these days.)

My DH has email for work because it's essential these days, but like heck he's going to spend any time typing and reading emails or SM threads on his own time. I can't even picture him ever having an interest in that. I rarely even see him sit down! If people ask for his email, he either tells them to call him or he gives them my email address.

We have no infidelity or trust issues. We're not fundamental Christians. Neither one of us is controlling of the other. We've been married for over two decades and going strong. My DH is just not the sort of person to spend time at a screen unless forced to for work (or for his sport team). He's way, way too busy and active.

My point is not to make judgements when you really don't know!

(I do think there were trust and control issues in the Papini case, however!)

jmopinion

I have been much the same as you with my spouse. That's not the same as having a shared account. They combine each other's names and it is a big production. It's quite popular with Independent Fundamentalist Baptists and Quiverful folk like the Duggars and colleagues.

Yeah, that just ain't right, but, they are allowed to do so, and this is why I tell everyone, I don't care what it is, if you're being brought in to be questioned about something, the only thing you should say, is, "I want an attorney." That's it. Period.

You know I'm an attorney and IMO if someone's reaction when their loved one went missing was to tell the police they won't talk without an attorney- they're guilty.


It seems insane to me.


Now of course if after they work with the police for a long time the police seem stuck on them to the exclusion of anything else, I can understand getting a lawyer then. But at the outset? No way. That's not how desperate, innocent people behave.

 

[Hope4More]

Bethel church which is connected to this case and has kind of taken over Redding has Pentecostal roots. It's a charismatic church. Very interesting to me.


She was found a year ago.



Yeah. There's been discussion about this. The brand for them is on their lower abdomen above their hip. Weird cult though.




I have been much the same as you with my spouse. That's not the same as having a shared account. They combine each other's names and it is a big production. It's quite popular with Independent Fundamentalist Baptists and Quiverful folk like the Duggars and colleagues.





You know I'm an attorney and IMO if someone's reaction when their loved one went missing was to tell the police they won't talk without an attorney- they're guilty.


It seems insane to me.


Now of course if after they work with the police for a long time the police seem stuck on them to the exclusion of anything else, I can understand getting a lawyer then. But at the outset? No way. That's not how desperate, innocent people behave.

I advocate asking for an attorney immediately upon LE saying they want to ask questions, no matter the circumstances. Perhaps all the more so in cases where family members are automatically persons of interest.

Maybe that's because I've simply read about/watched too many cases in which LE went after the innocent, based on little more than gut instinct and/or an unshakable belief that someone wasn't acting "right." Personally, I'd rather risk looking guilty to LE/the public than to expose myself to potentially irreversible legal jeopardy.

---

About SP's "brand." Since I think (I think I think, that is..) that SP was taken & held by person (s) for a personal reason, AND that her captors (s) were paralyzed by indecision how to extricate themselves from a situation they hadn't anticipated (intense local then national interest & large rewards being offered), AND that the "brand" was seemingly unreadable, perhaps even no more than random markings, what makes sense as a possibility IMO is that her captors were listening to the news, heard the speculation by many that SP has been kidnapped by sex traffickers, looked up or knew that traffickers often branded their victims, and "branded" SP to make it look like that was why she was kidnapped.

---According to KP (LE did not support or refute), SP's "brand" had raised scabs. If so, the (cuts?) weren't inflicted within a few days of her being found...

---If the "branding" was done to suggest sex trafficking, maybe SP's captors also deliberately chose a random pattern to make sure they didn't accidentally copy the brand of folks they wouldn't want to antagonize.

 

[TTF14]

I advocate asking for an attorney immediately upon LE saying they want to ask questions, no matter the circumstances. Perhaps all the more so in cases where family members are automatically persons of interest.

Maybe that's because I've simply read about/watched too many cases in which LE went after the innocent, based on little more than gut instinct and/or an unshakable belief that someone wasn't acting "right." Personally, I'd rather risk looking guilty to LE/the public than to expose myself to potentially irreversible legal jeopardy.

---

About SP's "brand." Since I think (I think I think, that is..) that SP was taken & held by person (s) for a personal reason, AND that her captors (s) were paralyzed by indecision how to extricate themselves from a situation they hadn't anticipated (intense local then national interest & large rewards being offered), AND that the "brand" was seemingly unreadable, perhaps even no more than random markings, what makes sense as a possibility IMO is that her captors were listening to the news, heard the speculation by many that SP has been kidnapped by sex traffickers, looked up or knew that traffickers often branded their victims, and "branded" SP to make it look like that was why she was kidnapped.

---According to KP (LE did not support or refute), SP's "brand" had raised scabs. If so, the (cuts?) weren't inflicted within a few days of her being found...

---If the "branding" was done to suggest sex trafficking, maybe SP's captors also deliberately chose a random pattern to make sure they didn't accidentally copy the brand of folks they wouldn't want to antagonize.

I still find the kidnap/held hostage scenario impossible to believe because if it were true, I really think they'd be caught by now because Sherri WOULD be able to "recall" what happened and give them clues. What could possibly be a reason she wouldn't tell all she knows if the story were actually true? It makes no sense.

 

[rsd1200]

Yes, the way it was worded sounded a little too mainstream for her to be a parttime trimmer, especially in foggy “methed up” Eureka. Garberville would be a different matter.

[FONT=&amp]Sherri did have a job over the last few years that brought her into Humboldt County,” Totten said. “She worked for a company that had a branch in Eureka. She would travel from Redding to Eureka every so often to work here for a short time.” Even though Papini no longer works for the company, that is a connection to this area, Totten said.

[/FONT]http://kymkemp.com/2016/11/07/two-h...lieved-by-family-to-be-abducted-near-redding/

My bad, I skimmed... :blushing:

 

[Tee7077]

Yes, the way it was worded sounded a little too mainstream for her to be a parttime trimmer, especially in foggy “methed up” Eureka. Garberville would be a different matter.

[FONT=&amp]Sherri did have a job over the last few years that brought her into Humboldt County,” Totten said. “She worked for a company that had a branch in Eureka. She would travel from Redding to Eureka every so often to work here for a short time.” Even though Papini no longer works for the company, that is a connection to this area, Totten said.

[/FONT]http://kymkemp.com/2016/11/07/two-h...lieved-by-family-to-be-abducted-near-redding/

She let’s say could have a friend from high school who grows marijuana indoors and comes to eureka area every few months when it is done to trim it for a little extra money.. also the att store in arcata isn’t a att store just a guy who fixes iPhones and is a certified dealer. I don’t know anyone who’s gone their for anything other then getting their screen fixed.

 

[rsd1200]

Bethel church which is connected to this case and has kind of taken over Redding has Pentecostal roots. It's a charismatic church. Very interesting to me.


She was found a year ago.



Yeah. There's been discussion about this. The brand for them is on their lower abdomen above their hip. Weird cult though.




I have been much the same as you with my spouse. That's not the same as having a shared account. They combine each other's names and it is a big production. It's quite popular with Independent Fundamentalist Baptists and Quiverful folk like the Duggars and colleagues.





You know I'm an attorney and IMO if someone's reaction when their loved one went missing was to tell the police they won't talk without an attorney- they're guilty.


It seems insane to me.


Now of course if after they work with the police for a long time the police seem stuck on them to the exclusion of anything else, I can understand getting a lawyer then. But at the outset? No way. That's not how desperate, innocent people behave.

I'll be the first to say, that somethin' ain't right with that Bethel church. I've made mention of them several times throughout this case and I've got an uneasy feelin' about all of the connections there. A comment was made on a FB post, when she went missing, and I failed to screenshot it, but, I ran across it by accident, the guy stated, One of our own is missing and posted her flyer. This made me feel, that they'd had at least some interaction, with that church. As did the middle man.

Re; the lawyer. I agree,by all means cooperate if your spouse or child is missing. However I was responding to the fact that some folks don't realize the extent that LE can lie to you. Even innocent people have been tripped up by dirty LE just wanting to close a case. I was talking in general terms, if you are being called in to be questioned over a serious, jailable offense, get an attorney. Guilty or not guilty. We, as lay people, do not know the law, and many people do not think that LE, or know that LE, will lie to them.

 

[rsd1200]

I advocate asking for an attorney immediately upon LE saying they want to ask questions, no matter the circumstances. Perhaps all the more so in cases where family members are automatically persons of interest.

Maybe that's because I've simply read about/watched too many cases in which LE went after the innocent, based on little more than gut instinct and/or an unshakable belief that someone wasn't acting "right." Personally, I'd rather risk looking guilty to LE/the public than to expose myself to potentially irreversible legal jeopardy.

---

About SP's "brand." Since I think (I think I think, that is..) that SP was taken & held by person (s) for a personal reason, AND that her captors (s) were paralyzed by indecision how to extricate themselves from a situation they hadn't anticipated (intense local then national interest & large rewards being offered), AND that the "brand" was seemingly unreadable, perhaps even no more than random markings, what makes sense as a possibility IMO is that her captors were listening to the news, heard the speculation by many that SP has been kidnapped by sex traffickers, looked up or knew that traffickers often branded their victims, and "branded" SP to make it look like that was why she was kidnapped.

---According to KP (LE did not support or refute), SP's "brand" had raised scabs. If so, the (cuts?) weren't inflicted within a few days of her being found...

---If the "branding" was done to suggest sex trafficking, maybe SP's captors also deliberately chose a random pattern to make sure they didn't accidentally copy the brand of folks they wouldn't want to antagonize.

BBM
If one of my kids or my spouse, were missing, I'd be immediately talking to LE, to assist in finding them. The instant that they were calling me in for "questioning"? I would be consulting a lawyer, or if in the middle of the conversation, (questioning), it turned toward me, that's when I'd utter those words, I want an attorney. Period.

 

[Hope4More]

I still find the kidnap/held hostage scenario impossible to believe because if it were true, I really think they'd be caught by now because Sherri WOULD be able to "recall" what happened and give them clues. What could possibly be a reason she wouldn't tell all she knows if the story were actually true? It makes no sense.

One if the hinkiest aspects of this case, IMO, is the supposed fact that SP, even after a full year, still can't recall a better description of the captors she was with for a full 3 weeks, nor to be able to suggest a motive to LE about why she was taken.

Yes, strange things happen every day, but the compilation of strange in her case kinda beggars belief, even, it would seem, from LE's perspective.

So, either SP really doesn't know & can't recall anything of significance for LE to work with (doubtful, IMO), or she has at minimum some idea why she was taken (and perhaps by whom), but won't tell LE what she knows.

Why wouldn't she tell LE, if she was indeed victimized and could theoretically tell LE more about her captors? Pure speculation, but there are a number of possible reasons, including:

1. To tell LE would be to tell KP, and she doesn't want him to know.

2. To tell LE would be to have the reason made public, and whatever the reason is seems to her more damning/humiliating than having many believe the whole thing was a hoax.

3. To tell LE would be to place herself and or KP in legal jeopardy.

4. To tell LE would be to further antagonize whatever enemy she has who was already willing to take the risk of kidnapping & harming her, and from whom SP perhaps thinks LE can't protect her (for whatever reason).

 

[Cannonball3804]

We might want to be mindful of TOS. No discussion of religion. As for judging people with shared SM accounts, I guarantee there are hundreds or thousands of forum members here who may handle their SM accounts that way. And many who don't. Neither is "right" and neither is "wrong". Let's stop judging each other, shall we?

 

[Dushi]

One if the hinkiest aspects of this case, IMO, is the supposed fact that SP, even after a full year, still can't recall a better description of the captors she was with for a full 3 weeks, nor to be able to suggest a motive to LE about why she was taken.

Yes, strange things happen every day, but the compilation of strange in her case kinda beggars belief, even, it would seem, from LE's perspective.

So, either SP really doesn't know & can't recall anything of significance for LE to work with (doubtful, IMO), or she has at minimum some idea why she was taken (and perhaps by whom), but won't tell LE what she knows.

Why wouldn't she tell LE, if she was indeed victimized and could theoretically tell LE more about her captors? Pure speculation, but there are a number of possible reasons, including:

1. To tell LE would be to tell KP, and she doesn't want him to know.

2. To tell LE would be to have the reason made public, and whatever the reason is seems to her more damning/humiliating than having many believe the whole thing was a hoax.

3. To tell LE would be to place herself and or KP in legal jeopardy.

4. To tell LE would be to further antagonize whatever enemy she has who was already willing to take the risk of kidnapping & harming her, and from whom SP perhaps thinks LE can't protect her (for whatever reason).

I strongly lean towards 1, 2 and 3 being extremely possible
Can't help but think she knows far more than she is telling

JMO

 

[Lilibet]

BBM
If one of my kids or my spouse, were missing, I'd be immediately talking to LE, to assist in finding them. The instant that they were calling me in for "questioning"? I would be consulting a lawyer, or if in the middle of the conversation, (questioning), it turned toward me, that's when I'd utter those words, I want an attorney. Period.

Yes, there is a difference between assisting LE and being “questioned.” I think just the presence of an attorney during “questioning” would prevent LE from using certain tactics. Over the years, we have been frustrated by people who have refused to answer questions and/or “lawyered up” (the Ramseys for example). But even if one is guilty of the crime, it is up to LE to prove it. You are not obligated to help them. Silence definitely pays off or delays arrest in cases I’m aware of currently. It may imply guilt, but implication and conviction are miles apart if you’re guilty.
JMO