Found Alive CA - Sherri Papini, 34, Redding, 2 November 2016 - #24

[bluesneakers]

Seems like a waste of resources to me.

But what choice do they have? They have to sketch the description they're given.

 

[bluesneakers]

I agree. If I recall correctly, there was a composite sketch in Susan Smith's case.

And Rachael Mattice.

 

[RANCH]

What if it leads to the truth about the case?

jmo

I'm not sure how knowingly releasing images of nonexistent people nearly a year after the alleged crime would lead to the truth in this case. JMO

 

[RANCH]

But what choice do they have? They have to sketch the description they're given.

I'm not sure what law says LE must sketch every suspect description they get but they certainly don't have to release the sketch if they don't believe her. JMO

 

[MaryG12]

Question for those who believe SP...

What are your thoughts on why the FBI poster requests information on "unknown individuals " rather than suspects or POI? Similarly, why does the poster refer to her "disappearance " rather than abduction or kidnapping?

This is atypical, to say the least. If they believe her, why wouldn't they use the normal and expected terminology for wanted suspects in an abduction? What kind of strategy or plan would cause them to issue such an unusual poster?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

BBM

Hmm...

That "unknown individuals" and "disappearance" does sound scripted doesn't it - maybe by the same person who referred to SP as a "Supermom" and "signature long blond hair."

MOO

 

[RANCH]

Where have you seen that? And what would be the strategy there?

I don't have an idea what the strategy is for any LE agency to release sketches of people they know don't exist nearly a year after the alleged crime.

Maybe this is the belief some have that LE uses all sorts of subterfuge to "trick" their suspect into confessing or slipping up. Not sure how that works in this case though. JMO

 

[bluesneakers]

I'm not sure what law says LE must sketch every suspect description they get but they certainly don't have to release the sketch if they don't believe her. JMO

I think they have to release it, even if they doubt her. I don't think LE believed for a second that a man who looked like Santa Claus kidnapped Rachel, but we all saw that sketch.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

Where have you seen that? And what would be the strategy there?

In addition to the others mentioned...

Audrey Seiler, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/08/10/cops-audrey-kidnap-story-hoax.html

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...r-kidnapping-experience-is-a-hoax-police-say/

http://abc7.com/news/11-year-old-boys-attempted-kidnapping-a-hoax/769142/

http://www.republictimes.net/columbia-abduction-attempt-turns-out-to-be-hoax/

http://www.mercurynews.com/2013/03/...ruz-rape-hoax-solicited-attack-on-craigslist/

http://www.fox4now.com/news/investigators-whiskey-creek-stabbing-a-hoax


And I'm sure there are many more. <modsnip> I'm sure there are some cases where they believed the person at first, but I'm also sure they can spot a fake victim pretty easily. Just like it's very easy for LE to tell when a crime scene has been staged. They see the real thing all the time.

Rachel Mattice is a great recent example... from the day she was reported missing, LE was saying there was no sign of foul play. They knew from the very beginning. And when she returned, they worked with her for a couple of weeks before a sketch was released, because the trauma made LE interviews so difficult for her. [emoji849] There were the same types of "she's a victim" and "we don't disbelieve her" statements. I think it took a couple of months before they charged her.

Does LE sometimes make mistakes? Of course. The Denise Huskins case should never have been treated the way it was.

Which is, of course, why they will release a sketch even when they don't believe the story. They would be negligent not to pursue a full investigation until they can prove a false report. Usually, they get a confession pretty quickly.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I think they have to release it, even if they doubt her. I don't think LE believed for a second that a man who looked like Santa Claus kidnapped Rachel, but we all saw that sketch.

I did so love that case!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[RANCH]

I think they have to release it, even if they doubt her. I don't think LE believed for a second that a man who looked like Santa Claus kidnapped Rachel, but we all saw that sketch.

Why does LE have to release suspect sketches?

 

[bluesneakers]

Why does LE have to release suspect sketches?

Do you know of any cases where they refused to release sketches?

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I agree. If I recall correctly, there was a composite sketch in Susan Smith's case.

Yes, FBI released a sketch in the Smith case. Even hauled in "suspects" for questioning. And they believed she was lying from the beginning.
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-18/news/mn-25189_1_susan-smith

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Steleheart]

Question for those who believe SP...

What are your thoughts on why the FBI poster requests information on "unknown individuals " rather than suspects or POI? Similarly, why does the poster refer to her "disappearance " rather than abduction or kidnapping?

This is atypical, to say the least. If they believe her, why wouldn't they use the normal and expected terminology for wanted suspects in an abduction? What kind of strategy or plan would cause them to issue such an unusual poster?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I see some differences in the FBI listings of " Unknown Suspects", Unknown Individuals", etc.
IMO there are clues in their classifications based on their " belief" about the specific information that is known.

For instance in another case I am following, the Delphi murders in Indiana, the sketch released lists him as an " Unknown suspect". The poster specifically says

During the course of the investigation, preliminary evidence has led investigators to believe the aforementioned person is suspected of being involved in the murders.

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/unknown-suspect-2/@@download.pdf

Pretty specific IMO.

In The poster of SP's captors the poster says;

The two individuals depicted may have information regarding this matter

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/unknown-individuals/@@download.pdf

"May have information" vs. "suspected of being involved". represents, IMO, a huge difference in what facts they have in evidence thus far and what they can say for certain.

At this point some vaguely depicted persons who may know something does not really make a suspect.

Ref. FBI - Seeking Information; https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-information
.

 

[Lilibet]

I don't have an idea what the strategy is for any LE agency to release sketches of people they know don't exist nearly a year after the alleged crime.

Maybe this is the belief some have that LE uses all sorts of subterfuge to "trick" their suspect into confessing or slipping up. Not sure how that works in this case though. JMO

I don’t think releasing the sketches is subterfuge. I think LE doesn’t have enough evidence that the story and descriptions are false, so they have to go on the assumption they are possibly true and release them as part of the investigation. But I don’t think releasing the drawings is necessarily an endorsement of SP’s account. It’s just LE doing its job.
JMO

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

Just want to apologize to one and all... I truly did not mean the snip above as any snark at all, and I'm sorry it came across that way.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Cannonball3804]

You&#8217;re right. The people in the best position to know (and with the training and experience to draw from) have consistently affirmed that they believe SP.

&#8220;Sgt. Jackson says he believes Papini was abducted, and that her story is true.&#8221;

http://people.com/crime/sherri-papini-people-explains-unsolved-abduction/

&#8220;Based on information we have, there&#8217;s no reason to believe this is not legitimate,&#8221; Bosenko told The Record Searchlight. &#8220;Since speaking to [the victim], based on information we&#8217;ve received, we believe her. We believe this was an abduction.&#8221;

http://www.californiacountynews.org...heriff-insists-bizarre-kidnapping-was-no-hoax

Your second citation is from December of 2016, so it's not recent.

Your first citation is not a direct quote. It is a writer's summation of what he thinks Jackson's position is. It is followed by direct quotes from Jackson that don't seem in sync with the writer's statement. The typical "we have no reason not to believe her" is far from an endorsement of her story; I read it as a plea to someone to come forward with the information that LE currently lacks but which they suspect is out there.

 

[sumzero]

Your second citation is from December of 2016, so it's not recent.

Your first citation is not a direct quote. It is a writer's summation of what he thinks Jackson's position is. It is followed by direct quotes from Jackson that don't seem in sync with the writer's statement. The typical "we have no reason not to believe her" is far from an endorsement of her story; I read it as a plea to someone to come forward with the information that LE currently lacks but which they suspect is out there.

The point is that LE has been consistent. Obviously, these investigators (not idiots and not, in my experience, gullible) have done their level best to poke holes in her story. That it still holds up, a year later, after an exhaustive investigation, is significant. Like it or not, it really is. In fact, finding no reason not to believe her, given the nature of this investigation, probably says more about the veracity of Sherri&#8217;s story than a simple &#8220;we believe her,&#8221; because her story has obviously withstood their intense scrutiny.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

The point is that LE has been consistent. Obviously, these investigators (not idiots and not, in my experience, gullible) have done their level best to poke holes in her story. That it still holds up, a year later, after an exhaustive investigation, is significant. Like it or not, it really is. In fact, finding no reason not to believe her, given the nature of this investigation, probably says more about the veracity of Sherri’s story than a simple “we believe her,” because her story has obviously withstood their intense scrutiny.

BBM

Mmmmm... not so much...

http://www.redding.com/story/n...en-ringing-off-hook/795090001/

"Once the sketches were finalized, detectives and investigators reviewed the sketches and compared the sketches with known witnesses or contacts identified during the investigation to see if the sketches matched any known parties. No matches were made with case file information," Jackson said.

Jackson said, "There have been no cases discovered that are similar in nature to this investigation concerning the pattern of operations by the suspect(s), treatment of the captured victim and release of the captured victim."

And despite over 600 tips, "none of the received tips have been able to generate a viable lead or information as to who is responsible for Sherri's abduction," Jackson said.

"At this time, there has not been any link connecting information discovered that would allow detectives and investigators to identify suspect(s)," Jackson said.


Sure sounds like, after an entire year, they haven't found *anything* to collaborate her story.

But they have found male DNA.




Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[cluciano63]

They (LE) can believe she was taken without necessarily buying the description of the abductors. But since they seem to have little else, why not show the sketches?

 

[natsound]

Do you know of any cases where they refused to release sketches?

I really want to reply to sumzero's comment on the last thread (I don't know how to carry over from one thread to another) but here it is:

"Racial stereotype? I guess I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. Also, if she were making up something out of thin air, she wouldn’t have to pretend their faces were partially covered. She could say she caught a glimpse of them when they were unaware (or that their faces were not covered at All). In fact, after that much time (if this were a hoax), I’d expect her to concoct something with more detail, thinking it’d help to convince people. (Liars tend to work extra hard to make their stories believable.) But if her captors took measures to keep her “in the dark” (literally and figuratively) for three weeks, then we’d expect her to have difficulty providing information (apart from whatever impact the traumatic experience caused her).
Last edited by sumzero; 11-24-2017 at 09:28 PM."

BBM

Over the Thanksgiving holiday I watched an hour-long show about Susan Smith, the woman who drove her two children into a river, killing them, and then blamed it on a ficticous black man who carjacked her. This stood out to me right away: LE drew up a composite sketch of the suspect based on Smith's description, but it lacked detail to the point that TV stations took it down after just a few days. It raised concern in the community because people said it could have been ANY black man.

This is a good example of a woman who was guilty of a crime but lied and said she was a victim, and she also didn't offer enough detail in her sketch.