Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #16

[creepcrusher]

I disagree, if that horrific danger is our there, the public has a right to know....and it is actually irresponsible at this point for the Sheriff not to release more of a description of the perps. JMO

If Sherri's face was covered during some of the time she was in captivity, she probably had no way of identifying any of the others- if there are others involved. If that's the case there is no reason for LE to release that information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

An "Account Executive" is a fancy name for sales agent. They are not actually "Executives."

 

[rsd1200]

Did she see their eyes? I hope so.

I thought it was just their brows, their hair, and the ears of at least one of them.

If she did see their eyes, then maybe LE will really be able to release a partial facial sketch soon. IIRC, the sheriff mentioned last week that he was hoping to get enough detail to make that happen.

BBM
This states that she did see their eyes.

Papini's head was covered with a hood the entire time, making it hard to see anything but the women's eyes as they abused her.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...arrowing-details-captivity.html#ixzz4S5sFZKM0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[natsound]

That is speculation. But it is based upon what some know about Mexican Mafia gang members. They often wear bandanas during armed robberies and drive bys. And it would explain why SP only saw their eyes and brows.

LE specifically said masks if I remember correctly, but I'm seeing another source (not MSM) that's saying bandannas, and I had seen a few posts on here to that effect. (Or did LE simply say they were masked? I'll have to go back and look.)

 

[Rosie2487]

Keith stated in the 20/20 interview SP was a stay at home mom. You can disregard her prior employment.

BBM.
Interesting assumption about their finances prior to all this. I made the opposite assumption, JMO. We know SP worked as an Account Executive at AT&T at some point based on her LinkedIn. We don't know for sure if she was still employed prior to being abducted and her sister even declined to answer that question at a press conference. I made the assumption that they had chosen as a couple to not have SP work full time while her kids were young so she could spend extra time with them. I know lots of families that made this same decision and were not hurting financially because of it. Most of my friends that did this lived off one income and banked the other spouse's income for a few years prior to having kids. Then the wife quit her job when they had kids with the plan of returning to work when the kids were school age. That's as just my assumption, however, that we can't say the Papini's were hurting financially just because of SP being a SAHM. Only the Papini's know the truth of what their finances were really like. Like many things about this case, I don't know that we can say one way or the other.

 

[Gardener1850]

I doubt there could be any useful footage from the release. It was 4:30 in the morning, and most surveillance video doesn't work well in the dark. It was also by an interstate and a rural highway, so video won't be helpful of a vehicle whizzing by in the dark at 75 mph. It was also in an area outside his county.

Nor does he have any idea of the path to the drop-off point because he has no idea where she was being held. But he CAN pinpoint where the abduction occurred, and it's also within his jurisdictional area. So much greater familiarity of the area and routes and points of surveillance footage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You may have a point about darkness and clarity of the images, but we know they DID pull video from the church near where she was released. I don't think jurisdiction is going to prevent the Sheriff from having access to things like that. JMO.

 

[TTF14]

I don't think the ransom was paid to the abductors or any of it given to the P's as someone previously stated. I don't think there ever was a ransom but that's JMO.

I agree. Am I correct in remembering this anonymous benefactor was British and from out of town? And he was either going on another business trip or going home for Thanksgiving? If it's true he was British, did he just happen to arrive in the States carrying that huge amount of cash, then hear about this story on the news from his hotel room? And was lucky enough to have a huge amount of American dollars on his person?

I'm sorry if this is all incorrect recollection on my part.

 

[Gardener1850]

Keith stated in the 20/20 interview SP was a stay at home mom. You can disregard her prior employment.

Thank you. That clears up she wasn't working at the time she was taken but I don't think we should disregard that she DID work previously and it seems to have been a very good job from what I can tell. My point remains that we can't say for sure whether they were hurting financially simply because she was a SAHM.

 

[natsound]

This NBC article says the abductors "frequently wore masks"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-mom-held-weeks-recounts-ordeal-cops-n690341

 

[KaaBoom]

Assuming it was true, they always intended to release her as otherwise there would be no reason for them to hide their identities. The hidden faces combined with releasing her on Thanksgiving all make it seem like her release was planned from the beginning.

I agree, them hiding their identities, is a good indication they did not intend to kill her. But I'm not sure that releasing her on Thanksgiving had much of anything to do with it. They could have been planning to release her at anytime, and maybe they had no timetable at all for releasing her.

I have several theories why they chose Thanksgiving to release her. 1. Maybe they had a change of heart, and decided to release her on Thanksgiving, so she could spend Thanksgiving with her family. 2. Maybe the kidnappers had plans of their own for Thanksgiving. Maybe they were on the way to see their families, and they couldn't bring SP with them. So they dropped her off on the side of the road.

 

[yupikgirl]

I'm sure there are some British people that celebrate thanksgiving, but if this donor was British him going home for thanksgiving makes no sense to me LOL

EDIT- I also recall hearing British, but don't know if that was here or on the news. I also have no clue if or when his country celebrates thanksgiving if at all LOL. Just struck me as odd when I thought about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manormuskeg]

BBM.
Interesting assumption about their finances prior to all this. I made the opposite assumption, JMO. We know SP worked as an Account Executive at AT&T at some point based on her LinkedIn. We don't know for sure if she was still employed prior to being abducted and her sister even declined to answer that question at a press conference. I made the assumption that they had chosen as a couple to not have SP work full time while her kids were young so she could spend extra time with them. I know lots of families that made this same decision and were not hurting financially because of it. Most of my friends that did this lived off one income and banked the other spouse's income for a few years prior to having kids. Then the wife quit her job when they had kids with the plan of returning to work when the kids were school age. That's as just my assumption, however, that we can't say the Papini's were hurting financially just because of SP being a SAHM. Only the Papini's know the truth of what their finances were really like. Like many things about this case, I don't know that we can say one way or the other.

It was stated somewhere that their house was KP's childhood home, so probably owned by his parents. No mortgage would help SP be a SAHM, but it seems obvious that SP wasn't a target for ransom because of personal riches. But now we hear about "wealthy relatives", so a money motive can't be entirely ruled out yet, jmo.

 

[TTF14]

This NBC article says the abductors "frequently wore masks"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-mom-held-weeks-recounts-ordeal-cops-n690341

I don't think we can go by what ANY media outlet reports with regard to the details about the masks, the branding, the hair cut, the restraints, etc. They seem to all like to interpret and report the details rather liberally. I'll stick to direct quotes from LE or the Papinis on those matters. That doesn't mean I believe them, but I'll just believe that's what was actually actually said, not interpreted by a "journalist."

 

[Seriously?]

I agree. Am I correct in remembering this anonymous benefactor was British and from out of town? And he was either going on another business trip or going home for Thanksgiving? If it's true he was British, did he just happen to arrive in the States carrying that huge amount of cash, then hear about this story on the news from his hotel room? And was lucky enough to have a huge amount of American dollars on his person?

I'm sorry if this is all incorrect recollection on my part.

Yes, that's my recollection. To celebrate British Thanksgiving!!!

 

[creepcrusher]

BBM.
Interesting assumption about their finances prior to all this. I made the opposite assumption, JMO. We know SP worked as an Account Executive at AT&T at some point based on her LinkedIn. We don't know for sure if she was still employed prior to being abducted and her sister even declined to answer that question at a press conference. I made the assumption that they had chosen as a couple to not have SP work full time while her kids were young so she could spend extra time with them. I know lots of families that made this same decision and were not hurting financially because of it. Most of my friends that did this lived off one income and banked the other spouse's income for a few years prior to having kids. Then the wife quit her job when they had kids with the plan of returning to work when the kids were school age. That's as just my assumption, however, that we can't say the Papini's were hurting financially just because of SP being a SAHM. Only the Papini's know the truth of what their finances were really like. Like many things about this case, I don't know that we can say one way or the other.

I agree. Also since they lived in KP's childhood home, we don't know if they had a mortgage, or if the home was a gift. He could have relatives that are helping them out financially. I wouldn't be surprised if Best Buy allowed him a leave of absence. His circumstances would be a good reason for his employer to work with him. It's not like they don't know his situation. And boy would it make Best Buy look bad if they forced him to go right back to work after all this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elle*Bee]

Thank you. That clears up she wasn't working at the time she was taken but I don't think we should disregard that she DID work previously and it seems to have been a very good job from what I can tell. My point remains that we can't say for sure whether they were hurting financially simply because she was a SAHM.

Good point. Plus since they were living in a house owned by KP's family, it's possible they weren't paying rent/mortgage. That would stretch KP's income farther.

 

[natsound]

You may have a point about darkness and clarity of the images, but we know they DID pull video from the church near where she was released. I don't think jurisdiction is going to prevent the Sheriff from having access to things like that. JMO.

I didn't know about the video from the church. Is there a link to that? Also, we remember KP saying SP ran to a house, then a "building".

 

[TTF14]

It was stated somewhere that their house was KP's childhood home, so probably owned by his parents. No mortgage would help SP be a SAHM, but it seems obvious that SP wasn't a target for ransom because of personal riches. But now we hear about "wealthy relatives", so a money motive can't be entirely ruled out yet, jmo.

Why was it even important to point out they are staying with "wealthy" relatives??? I wonder if that fact is even true, or another liberal interpretation by writers. I put no stock in that at all, and not even sure I believe they are out of town. It also doesn't matter (to me).

 

[Heather301]

Is it against the law for a wealthy person to possess $100,000 in cash?

No absolutley not and all they have to do is keep it in a safety deposit box. No one is allowed to see what you put in or take out of your box. I wonder if this is how they had the money so readily available. JMO

 

[KaaBoom]

I have a feeling they haven't gone far. I mean, how are they living? It must have been difficult even before this happened, with KP being at Best Buy and SP not working. So now either he's not working, or they remain close enough for him to get to his job.

And given the situation, to go too far away would mean leaving behind their entire support system.

They have $50,000 from the .