Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #15

Status
Not open for further replies.
So we have two options: (1) CG is a rather pathetic figure who saw another opportunity to insert himself into a volatile situation in which he was clearly not qualified, jeopardizing the life of an innocent person, or (2) there is something much more sinister going on here, and CG is only one person in a larger conspiracy of fools.

Agree with this.
 
As a Catholic, you can marry in the church, divorce and still receive an annulment at a later date. A family member did this. This was when the Catholic Church's Tribunal began being a little more liberal in annulments.
There was no annulment; "final judgement" divorce records are on file with Shasta County for Sep 2008.
 
At what time does the Sheriff's office say "case closed?" Remembering too, that San Diego closed the case on the McStay disappearance in no time flat.
Will this one be the same if they have no evidence they are willing to talk about?

Also:

What happens to the massive amount of money the family received from the Go Fund Me account?

My understanding is that nothing much was spent out of it to speak of, if the questionable abudction expert received no payment?

https://www..com/help-find-sherri-papini
 
You know, sometimes when you look back at a case, you do so with the benefit of hindsight. And people's actions are then harder to explain. But you need to put yourself in their shoes at the beginning of the entire ordeal. This is 100x more important when the case becomes a national obsession, or at least gets a massive amount of unexpected attention.

Sometimes people get ideas that, while clearly wrong and illegal, don't seem so crazy at the time. They are looking for a quick buck, or perhaps some much needed attention for whatever reason (professional, personal). You expect a bit of trouble, a few days or a week of heat, but it all blows over, and eventually, mission accomplished! Your small time scam worked, you walk away with a bit of cash, attention, whatever.

But occasionally, albeit rarely, the unexpected happens, and your crime becomes a national obsession, even appearing in newspapers around the world! You are thrust into the spotlight, you now need to explain things in much more detail, the scrutiny is overwhelming. "How did this happen?" you ask yourself. You expected some local attention, but that was manageable. But TV interviews? People looking into your past? Examining in detail previous jobs, statements, personal details. All of a sudden, this simple crime is not so simple any more...

People look at you and think, "Why would he/she do that, knowing the kind of trouble it would cause?" But of course they never anticipated this level of scrutiny when it all began. It seemed like the perfect crime at the time...

Or, perhaps put more succinctly: oh what a tangled web we weave...
 
As a Catholic, you can marry in the church, divorce and still receive an annulment at a later date. A family member did this. This was when the Catholic Church's Tribunal began being a little more liberal in annulments.

Yes, but from all reports the first marriage wasn't "in the church" - it's said DD was Jewish.
 
I would expect then, that LE knows who the anonymous donor is even if KP doesn't. I mean, how did this donor make contact? In person? Through an intermediary? At some point, unless it was only face to face, there has to be a phone record somewhere if LE walks the chain back.


I haven't seen any details in terms of how the anonymous donor contacted Gamble.

I also haven't seen it specified as to how the anonymous donor contacted KP. But, a hard copy document quickly flashed on the screen at about the 16:45 minute mark in the 20/20 interview; at the point when the narrator said that KP had been contacted directly by an anonymous donor and told to get in touch with Cameron Gamble (which KP confirmed).

I don't know if that document was a letter, a fax, a printed copy of an email/post, or simply creative license by ABC.
 
In my Archdiocese, it doesn't matter if the previous marriage was Catholic or not. An annulment is required before a priest will marry you in the Catholic church.

Okay then. But as I said, an annulment would be just a matter of paperwork if the previous marriage was not Catholic. It is granted as a matter of routine.

This has been discussed a few times before. Not sure why so many people want to split hairs on this...
 
Anything is possible. Obviously SP was TAKEN somewhere for 22 days, and obviously she was badly injured, humiliated and traumatized. HOW and WHY this happened, may not be as it seems, however. Best to pay attention to what LE confirms to be true, and pay attention to what they do NOT say. JMO

Are you sure you want to go down that road. This is from the first post of this thread by Tlcya.


WEBSLEUTHS WILL NOT ALLOW ANY MORE COMMENTS TO STAND STATING THAT SHERRI PAPINI WAS PART OF A KIDNAPPING HOAX. IF MEMBERS ACCUSE SHERRI OF A HOAX THEY WILL BE IMMEDIATELY TIMED OUT IF NOT BANNED DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION.



 
There was no annulment; "final judgement" divorce records are on file with Shasta County for Sep 2008.

A civil divorce does not prevent the Catholic church from granting an annulment, especially if the previous marriage was not Catholic.

I guess maybe the big confusion here is that "everybody knows" a divorced person cannot get a Catholic marriage. It is simply not true. I know several people who have. They key factor, though, is whether or not the previous marriage was a Catholic marriage.
 
Media: anything for the ratings
CG: bad press = free press

smh

Well jeez, I see people eating it up on this board. If people are interested and there are questions to be answered, why not interview the guy and set the record straight? The media is doing its job.
 
I think that so called church has very long and strong tentacles........Redding seems to me to be its hostage. JMO

I agree.

I am worried (seriously, for obvious reasons) that half the staff of the sheriff’s department belongs to the church. So much for all of our chatter here on WS about LE withholding info in order to stay a step ahead of the principals.

I also think back to the sheriff saying mid-November that the FBI wasn’t much involved in the P case, which seemed odd and troubling then, and today I read in the Daily Beast that Cam doesn’t want the FBI sniffing around his cases. You have to ask if those two things are connected.
 
The family was very specific on what happened to her from very early on, which as it now turns out happens to coincide with when the anonymous donor and presumably CG first showed up. Back when searches were going on and KP was under investigation by LE, the family was specifically saying not only that she had been abducted, but she was taken out of town rather than any of 100 other things that could have possibly happened."

Still, Koester believes her sister's disappearance will end differently than Smith's. ... “We feel that she's going to walk through the door at any time,” Koester said."

(source: www.sacbee.com/news/local/article114313103.html )


One of the earliest relatives interview(SP's sister).
Which, of course, kind of puzzled me.
 
I'd like to know who the heck CG thinks he is that he can tell the FBI what to do. LOL.
 
Personally, it doesn't make me suspicious if members of Shasta County LE go to the same church as some of the players in this case (but, I understand why it might be of concern to others). There is no doubt in my mind that LE is not a fan of CG.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
162
Guests online
2,394
Total visitors
2,556

Forum statistics

Threads
595,357
Messages
18,023,043
Members
229,627
Latest member
MambeuX
Back
Top