Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #10

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm still in the camp believing this was an abduction, rather than a hoax. My belief is based on what we've seen and been told so far, and is subject to change if other information is revealed. I will confess that if I were to start firmly onto the hoax path with no particular evidence, and it turns out that it really is an abduction, I'm going to feel terrible. So I will stay put and risk being wrong...again (I was sure Sherri had been murdered).

I do agree that this case is very strange, but I just don't see hoax in the actions of anyone that we've seen so far. I would really be straining to reach that conclusion, personally.

At this point, I don't think Sherri was abducted at random. I just don't see someone happening upon her near that intersection and deciding to take her for some reason. I do think (without any indicators I can point to) that the abduction was related to something Sherri or someone in her inner circle has said or done in the past or present. I doubt they ever intended to kill her, but rather to inflict pain on her and her family (physical and/or emotional), either for revenge or to teach a lesson. Once they felt that sufficient damage had been done and/or the amount of publicity and reward could uncover them, they released her.

As usual, this is JMO and I am prepared to be wrong. It won't be the first time or the last. :D

Great post. Thank you.

Sometimes I think unusual cases have a tendency to cloud the judgment of some when future cases come along. As far as hoaxes go I think that theory started after the balloon boy hoax. Until that happened I don't remember many before then who went with the hoax theory. Imo, it seems to put the seed in the minds of some based on one or two hoaxes that happened. Its fascinating how certain theories seem to develop based on other particular cases and those cases are rare yet they stick somehow in our minds..

The same thing happened in the Casey Anthony case. Until her case happened I had never seen the theory that a child accidentally died yet was thrown away and never reported missing. Yet there were some who did believe that theory at the time and I have seen that theory invoked in other cases since then. Yet, during CAs case, and since then I have searched for such case. To this day I have never found one case where a child had truly accidentally died from a mishap and was thrown away and forgotten. While one case may often remind me of other cases in general, I only base my opinion on the cases individually, and not how others turned out. Each case has a completely different sets of circumstances, different victim, and evidence. Imo, what happened in another case in the past or what the person did or did not do then....... really has no bearing or relevancy to any other case, including Sherri's.

As for Sherri's case I have no reason to doubt that she was a victim of an abduction. I am not a cynical person nor one who is suspicious of everything and everyone, and I am also very patient.:) So that is why I wait until all of the facts come in directly from LE.

I certainly don't believe Sherri brutally attacked herself nor do I think there is one thing suspicious about her husband arriving before LE arrived. I have the same kind of hubby who would do the same if God forbid I went through something like Sherri had endured for three long weeks. I don't think the chain and unknown object attached to Sherri when found were props of any kind either. At this time I have no reason to believe Sherri or any of her family were involved in any manner whatsoever and truly believe they are all thanking God that she has been returned to her loved ones although badly battered, but alive.

I have always supported victims and the victim's families and have never regretted that decision for one moment since I joined WS in 2004. I would much rather support victims/families fully 100% than prematurely cast doubt against any of them especially when I don't have any facts to support they are guilty of anything.

So until, and if ever,, evidence comes forth showing I shouldn't support Sherri anymore, my views/opinions will change of course, but until then, I am very supportive of Sherri and her family.

I certainly can understand why others are suspicious and I respect everyone's theories/opinions about Sherri. This is only how "I" look at cases including this one. Everyone has a right to their own opinions and theories, and I do read all posts written, and find them all very interesting and enlightening.

Imo, being abducted, heavily battered, and no telling what else she endured has to be so traumatic for Sherri. She had to be terrified wondering if she would ever see her family again. Anyone who beats a petite innocent female has to be cold and ruthless to the core but at least even though they beat her they didn't kill her, and let her go instead. I have read even evil people will have a good side every now and then and I believe Sherri somehow was able to convince them to let her go..
 
The only motive I can think of is the abductors did this for a thrill. I hope this doesn't catch on like the clowns
 
And if you say no????

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

I'm very interested in that, too. If someone does lie to the Catholic Church about being previously married, how does that affect a marriage if the Church later learns of it.
 
I'm very interested in that, too. If someone does lie to the Catholic Church about being previously married, how does that affect a marriage if the Church later learns of it.


I think it would generally only come up say if a couple were divorcing, it may be grounds for annulment if the non-lying spouse brings it up.
 
Actually, a Catholic who is married by a justice of the peace, or by a non-Catholic minister, still has to go through the annulment process. In these cases (called "defect of form") obtaining an annulment is generally a quicker, easier process - but still required if the Catholic wishes to be remarried in the Catholic Church.

A couple of links:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/no-catholic-divorce-grounds-and-obstacles-to-annulments

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/annulments/

It's possible SP received an annulment. Those are not a matter of public record.

Where did I say there would be no paperwork involved? They still need a marriage licence too, right?

Your second link actually proves the opposite of what you say.

"a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union."

and

"For a Catholic marriage to be valid, it is required that:... their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. "

It's kind of fuzzy, but it is my understanding that formal paperwork (ie, an annulment) is not always required. In any case, it is always given if the person was not married by a duly authorized Catholic minister.

Why split hairs here and muddy the waters?

The giant misunderstanding is that divorced people can't have a Catholic marriage. That is not always true. If the previous marriage was not a Catholic marriage they most certainly can. Period.

<modsnip>
 
I really don't understand this. Who is this mystery benefactor supposed to be? Does this money really exist? Why are they still going on about it?

If this guy really has so much money it would be nice if he could donate some to some of the other missing people who have had very little press coverage rather than fixating on this one family. I've seen other families struggle to scrape together even a $1000 reward for a loved one. JMO.

I'm wondering if the money really exists too. Are they trying to set the kidnappers up into trying to take SP again by insinuating she's going to get some of the ransom/reward/mysterious donation? I'd have thought that theory would be way far-fetched until recently, but given the facts in this case so far, who knows!
 
I'm very interested in that, too. If someone does lie to the Catholic Church about being previously married, how does that affect a marriage if the Church later learns of it.
She was divorced at the time they were married, so I think legally it's not an issue. The church however would probably not view it that way.

Does California ask that question for a license?

And she may have gotten an annulment from the Church, as someone else stated.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk
 
Sheriff elaborates on whether Papini was 'heavily battered,' 'chained to something'

When asked to elaborate on scanner reports that Papini, 34, was found "chained to something," Bosenko noted that his agency has not phrased it that way.

"We weren't specific on how she was restrained," he said. "After being released, dropped off, however you want to refer to it, she walked to a nearby church, and then nobody was there, and then walked to I-5 near Road 17, where she flagged down a motorist."

http://www.redding.com/news/local/Sheriff-sheds-more-light-on-Sherri-Papini-case-403474556.html
 
I am trying to figure out how to find this forum on tap talk and I don't get it! If anyone can help direct me that would be great!
 
Sheriff elaborates on whether Papini was 'heavily battered,' 'chained to something'



http://www.redding.com/news/local/Sheriff-sheds-more-light-on-Sherri-Papini-case-403474556.html
From the link above:

"We weren't specific on how she was restrained," he said. "After being released, dropped off, however you want to refer to it, she walked to a nearby church, and then nobody was there, and then walked to I-5 near Road 17, where she flagged down a motorist."

It sounds like a different story now. IMO
 
You bring up a good point. Perhaps the abductor works in the industrial field...a field where hose clamps are readily available or handy. If not, why would the abductor think of *hose clamps* to bound SP? If I'm going to abduct someone and I don't work in an industrial field, I don't suddenly think of hose clamps. I am only going to grab something as specific as that because its readily handy or available. I'm going to grab rope, zip ties, handcuffs, etc. But *hose clamps*??

So, without violating TOS, can we think to ourselves the abductors possibly working in an industrial-related field?

Me thinks I'm onto something...
Auto mechanics, oil refineries, cement plants, boat supplies, anything that requires clamping off a hose. The list could go on and on. [emoji54]
 
I really don't understand this. Who is this mystery benefactor supposed to be? Does this money really exist? Why are they still going on about it?

If this guy really has so much money it would be nice if he could donate some to some of the other missing people who have had very little press coverage rather than fixating on this one family. I've seen other families struggle to scrape together even a $1000 reward for a loved one. JMO.

I don't understand this either. SHe's home now and they have the money from the . If this reward money actually exists. I wish this person would offer rewards in other cases. Like these cases in Yolo county, where a 16 and a 17 year old, who were friends and in the same school program, went missing weeks apart. I posted a thread to get it some attention and didn't get a single reply which is disheartening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
4,281
Total visitors
4,475

Forum statistics

Threads
591,761
Messages
17,958,523
Members
228,603
Latest member
megalow
Back
Top