![]() In addition to your excellent summary of the information released which casts doubt on her story (intentionally, IMO, they certainly knew the impression it would give the public), I would add that "no reason not to believe," with the double negative, is nowhere near what I would consider an adamant statement of belief. I'm thinking they are quite a bit more certain. This is is why I do not think LE is “adamant that she is telling the truth.” They aren’t any more certain than we are IMO. It just puts SP under the public microscope again. None of this information moves the case forward IMO. Even the video proves nothing except that SP ran to the Kingdom Hall from somewhere and then ran toward the freeway. Belatedly releasing the drawings of the two women and more info about their vehicle, and excusing the delay because of SP’s extreme memory issues, raises more doubts about her credibility. The invisible cut on SP’s foot undermines her credibility. Smashing the kidnapper’s head into the toilet brings up memories of the white pride blog post about heroically vanquishing Latinas. Mentioning Michigan man’s texts and trip to SF implies an internet affair. So why release them? If anything, they just put pressure on SP. ![]() A few of the recently released bits of information don’t really help enhance the public’s belief in SP’s story or move the investigation forward IMO. The only way LE can express their possible thinking is to release information. If nothing else, they learned from the Denise Hutchins case that truth is stranger than fiction, so they need to keep their thoughts private. But I would not be surprised if they privately and individually have doubts that they cannot express publicly. So, as professionals they have to say they believe her and continue investigating. My theory about why LE is “so adamant” SP is telling the truth is that they have no definitive evidence that she isn’t. A side note if you want I would love to read your theories on why the police are so adamant she is telling the truth. *You can discuss, like a mature person who is expressing their opinion in front of the whole Papini family, why you believe Sherri Papini is not telling the truth. Quoting Tricia in the opening post, this caught my eye. A year after California mom’s mysterious disappearance, new info surfaces | Sherri Papini: California Mom Had Male DNA on Her BACKSTORY: Redding Crime 2.0 Missing Person Sherri Papini If everyone uses common sense and does not reduce this discussion to name calling and all kinds of other immature acts, we shouldn't have a problem.īasing your opinion/posts on the facts in this case and doing so in a mature manner will mean the Papini thread will stay open. Meaning mainstream media and police sources. *You cannot use rumor and innuendo to explain your theory as to why Papini made up the kidnapping story. A side note if you want I would love to read your theories on why the police are so adamant she is telling the truth Example: Fox News Story Sherri Papini case: DNA evidence triggers new questions over 'super mom' kidnapping claim *You can discuss the discrepancies reported by the mainstream media. *You can discuss the discrepancies in Sherri's statements, her husband's, or anyone else who has given a statement to the police. With that in mind here is what is now open for discussion. Whatever you choose to say (within TOS of course) you can do so in a kind and mature manner. Keep that vision in your mind while you type your post. Let me just throw this out there what if everyone is wrong? Can you imagine the pain?īefore I tell you the rules for discussion Sherri's case, I want to envision you are sitting with Sherri, her husband, and her CHILDREN, while you are telling them your theory. Not that this played any part in my decision on what to allow in the Papini discussion I can tell you I can't find anyone who believes her other than a handful of posters on Websleuths. We have the police saying they believe Sherri is telling the truth yet there are discrepancies. In the Papini case, discussion forum and victim friendly forum smash head-on into each other.įirst and foremost we are a discussion forum.īecause there are many mainstream media articles about the discrepancies in Sherri's story, we must allow a discussion to contain opinions that Sherri is not truthful, and the next logical leap is we must allow the theory that Sherri is not telling the truth about her kidnapping. Rarely do these two descriptions collide. A very close second is we are a victim friendly forum. First and foremost Websleuths is a true crime discussion forum.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |