The sheriff stated at a news conference that money had nothing to do with Papini’s safe recovery.“We currently have no reason to disbelieve Sherri Papini’s story,” Bosenko said, according to ABC News. “She was assaulted and had injuries which she was treated for.”Currently have no reason, implies that there is a possibility that at some point that could change, correct? He allows for the possibility of a change? The sheriff's office has doubts about her story?
BBC reporting the branding mark may be some intended message.
"No reason to disbelieve" is not the same as we believe her story.
Continuing that last thought, there is no *reason* to disbelieve her but does that mean they are not suspicious? A reason implies facts that would contradict her story. They have not uncovered those facts, apparently, but it sounds like they think those facts exist.
It would be interesting to know where she was 'branded' and what the 'message' was.Unless they had a brand already designed with the message, they would have to do it manually using a hot wire or heating the end of a thin piece of metal and hot striking it, doing one line at a time.Either way it will hurt like heck and would be time consuming especially if she is resisting and moving.It is possible they could have freeze branded her, same thing though, it will take time.Why brand a message on someone and who is the message aimed at?Why brand and not cut or scratch?There is still something off here, something we are not being told.Perhaps when more info is released it will be clearer as to what crimes have been commited, against who and why.
Before watching this video (and 3 and 4 on YouTube), I hadn't heard about the statistical correlation between the invocation of "cell phone" and being present at the crime. This lesson puts a big center piece in place in my Blackburn puzzle. Wow. Thank you.
Post a Comment