Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Sherri Papini Case: Anonymous Reward Letter

A person has posted an anonymous letter regarding a reward for the release of Sherri Papini.
Here is the comment by Sheriff Tom Bosenko.
“No. 1, if she is being held by someone, we think we, or the family, would have been contacted by the abductors by now if they wanted to hold her for ransom.  Offering a reward through an attempt to directly contact someone who may have kidnapped her could lead someone possibly exploiting the situation. I think this may bring some con artist out of the woodwork trying to collect some of the money."

The Sheriff's comments are pointed, logical and sober.  The investigation is complex and this element added will increase the complexity of what they must then employ resources to counter.  This is why they seek to work with anyone willing to offer a reward.  This writer should have sought police permission first.  

This letter is for the person who has Sherri Papini

Where does this statement begin?  

We always look at where a statement begins as a priority. Sometimes it is the top priority and sometimes it even reveals the motivation for the statement, itself. 

It begins with "this letter", that is, "this" (close) and "letter", which must be written by someone.
Therefore, we note that the subject has begun with his own writing as a priority.

Next we note that it is for "the person", not for the "person or persons", which puts the responsibility upon one person, gender neutral. The subject does not assume the identity of the kidnapper. Since most kidnappers are male, this may be an attempt to conceal the identity of female.


We are viewing this letter now, after the fact, that Sherri has been released.

Why "person", singular?
Why "person" gender neutral?

"To the kidnapper" would be insulting, something that two authors would not want to do:

1. The fraudulent author who has guilty knowledge and is involved in a scam will not want to insult himself
2. The genuinely concerned author who does not want to sound accusatory to the kidnapper lest the kidnapper (s) take out anger upon the victim.

The priority of the letter is the author, himself.

As this is now stated, we see if the rest of the letter affirms it, denies it, or remains neutral towards it.

Question: how would such a letter affirm it?
Answer: with lots of use of the pronoun "I", giving the impression that the writer, himself, is more important than the victim.

I am willing to confidentially pay you cash immediately for her release. 

The author does not state, "I will pay you for the release" but is only "willing."

This brings us to two thoughts as to why the commitment to paying is weakened:

1. The writer has no intention of paying because he knows it is a scam (guilty knowledge)
2. The writer has no intention of paying. Period. In dealing with a kidnapper, this would be a very dangerous bluff to make.

We then look at the word "immediately" as incongruent with "willing."

He avoids making a strong commitment with "I will pay..." but then makes a strong statement about timing: "immediately."

Incongruities in language suggest deception. That he is only "willing" to pay, but then to do so "immediately" will cause us to consider:

Not only might this writer be scamming, but even in scamming, the writer's personality is such that he does not want to lightly part with money. He wants to appear to be legitimate with "immediate" but belies this with his own additional wording by addressing his emotion towards paying.

Next consider the focus of this sentence is upon the "willingness" or emotion of...
the author of the letter.

It does not address the emotions of the kidnapper or kidnappers, but is about how the author of the letter is feeling. He is the important element of this sentence as seen through an additional and unnecessary (seemingly unnecessary; if he actually intended to pay) word.

The author is going to have to have his willingness to pay influenced, in some way. This is not an offer for money, but an offer for someone else to impact our author, the subject. He is not willing to pay unless something can impact him to make him willing to pay. By reversing the law of economy and using this one simple word, he is giving us a great deal of information.

I am a visitor in Redding who heard of Sherri’s disappearance and want to see her returned to her family.

The unnecessary inclusion of this detail suggests that the person wants to be seen as not living in or her Redding, further increasing the sensitivity about his location.

Why would the kidnapper care where he is from? What difference would it make if he is from Mars?
This is not about money.
This is about the author, himself. It matters to him; not to the kidnapper.

Note that he is writing to the kidnapper but he is not writing about her kidnapping; but her "disappearance."

As those who have read the analysis of the McCanns, there is a very big difference between one who "disappears" and one who is kidnapped.

This writer, by using the word "disappearance" rather than abduction or kidnapping, does not commit himself to:

a. payment
b. belief that she has been kidnapped and held for ransom.

He does not believe his own words.

Again, the focus of his own willingness:

I am willing to pay you in whatever way you can creatively think 

Here is the second indicator that no such money is going to change hands.

We also see insight into our subject (author): he is one who "thinks creatively" regarding the topic of money. (pay)

The kidnapper (recipient of the letter) will have to find a creative way to make our subject willing to pay for Sherri's release. 

He is not willing to pay money.

What do you know so far about the author of this anonymous letter?

The author's location is very important to him.
The author does not want to part with money.
The author thinks creatively about money. This may indicate the author of the anonymous note is motivated by money.

about where you feel safe and where nothing can be tracked to you. I will not communicate with the police, Sheriff’s department regarding any details about this offer.

The author shows distancing language from police. This is not a good signal. Circumventing police is never a good sign of cooperation.

I am not interested in to her disappearance; I am only interested in paying for her immediate release.

Here he is only "interested" in paying; not that he will pay. This distancing language further strengthens the notion that there is no intention to pay the money. We carefully take note of that which is reported in the negative; this is elevated in importance: he is not interested in her "disappearance." This is not something a kidnapper would believe and sounds amateurish. Can you picture a kidnapper going, "yes, but he says he is not interested in getting us caught?" to his comrades?
I set up an email address and disposable phone.

The amateurish Hollywood version continues.

I don’t want anyone to know who I am, just as you don’t want anyone to know who you are. This would be between you, my negotiator and me only.

This is a linguistic connection with "the person" who has Sherri and the writer of this anonymous letter. He connects himself to this person, via sharing something in common: neither of us wants our identities known.

One must consider if the writer has done something illegal in his life.

I will only be in Redding for the next few days before I leave on my next business trip. I have the cash ready to give to my negotiator 24/7 as soon as you out to him using the contact information below.
Please email me at Bringsherrihome@gmail.com or call . . . . .
If you email me, send a photo of Sherri with today’s newspaper in front of her.
You can also text this image of Sherri to the phone number above. You can get a disposable phone at Wal-Mart or many other stores, so nothing can be tracked to you.

The author now counsels the kidnapper (s) on how to avoid being tracked by police. See the distancing language above for his disposition towards police as negative. Note the "advise" to kidnappers continues.

note the continued reference to "my negotiator" is sensitive. One might wonder if "my negotiator" and the writer are one and the same.
If you call my negotiator using the number above, he will want to ask her a couple of questions so we can confirm it’s her. If she can’t talk for any reason, then you must provide us a photo of her with today’s newspaper in front of her.
A note to scammers who will try to pretend you have Sherri. This phone does not have call waiting. If you call and pretend you have Sherri you may be preventing the real person from reaching us. My hired negotiator has negotiated  ransom releases for people all over the world, so he will determine immediately if you are lying.

Here is a change of language. "My negotiator" is now "my hired negotiator", with the additional word, "hired" added to his title. To be "hired" indicates expenditure of money; something this writer does not want to do.

One should further consider that "my negotiator" and the writer are one and the same.
Note the boasting of having negotiated all around the world is a very positive linguistic disposition towards the "hired negotiator", further suggesting it is the author, himself.

A note to the press. Please don’t call this number. You can send an email to the email address listed and my negotiator will call you back.

Notice that "my negotiator" has never become the expected, "the negotiator" once referenced? This ownership, as seen via repetition, as well as the favorable linguistic disposition suggests that no such "negotiator" exists; it is the author himself.
A note to the Redding and Shasta County Sheriff’s department.  Please don’t threaten me. I have received legal counsel and what I am doing is within my rights.

Note the weak assertion. The author is not currently working with an attorney.
The author likely has a history of confrontation with police (and, perhaps, authority, itself).

Once I leave town this offer is off the table. So, if you want to be paid a cash ransom reward contact us immediately.

not, "if you want the money" but if you "want to be paid a cash ransom", with the reversal of the law of economy, the writer is attempting to impress readers; not any kidnappers.


Analysis Conclusion:

The writer is male and his motive is publicity. He does not likely have $50,000 to offer, and is interested in finding creative ways to make money. He lacks money and this, itself, is a creative way to make money, likely through publicity.

The writer likely has a history of self inflation; he does not have a "hired negotiator" but is attempting to infuse himself into a case, without money and knowingly against the unexpressed wishes of law enforcement for his own gain.

The writer needs to be a "hero" but is fraudulently making the claim of money and negotiator.

The writer is also not convinced of the kidnapping, itself, but is seeking to capitalize on the notoriety of the case.

The writer does not show knowledge of crime, kidnappings, nor ransoms. He uses amateurish language which appears to come from television, even as he "counsels" the "kidnappers" on how to obtain "cash" and "ransom reward" (a "ransom" is not a "reward"). One can almost hear the contemptuous laughter from a criminal.

The rebuke from law enforcement on such interference in a case is well founded. This is someone who could damage the integrity of a case and flood them with false leads.

This is how an author "outs" himself; as his motives, background, history and personality come out.

Selfish, self serving, with superficial experience and knowledge, but a creative mind to obtain money, the author made a disingenuous offer.


Deejay said...

I am willing to pay you in whatever way you can creatively think about where you feel safe and where nothing can be tracked to you.

Doesn't this sentence accurately describe what/where the Papini family is now? Hiding out with the reward money at an undisclosed location.

rob said...

Deejay, actually they are hiding out the the go-fund-me money, which at $49,000 and some change is amazingly the same amount offered as reward.
This story is the script of a life-time movie. We just have to add the "busted!" part.

Carnival Barker said...

Why is the author negotiating with the kidnappers when he's already hired someone to do that for him????

GeekRad said...

I can't wait to hear Sherri's statement but am not holding my breath that she will make one.

John Mc Gowan said...

"I will only be in Redding for the next few days before I leave on my next business trip."

Unnecessary (information) words in a statement will reveal unconscious priority, telegraphed. It's important to note. The "author," allows us into to his/her mind set. He/she (author) want's to portray to the reader/listener, that he/she is a "business" man/woman.

"before I leave on my next business trip."


Passivity conceals identification, and or activity.

The "author" allows for interpretation (the reader) of what he/she maybe (job, education, etc) status
The operative words, (to he/she) being "business trip."

He/she, desires respect. I'm a "business" man.

Was he/she bullied at school/college/work? The need for attention, i believe, is paramount to the author.

I concur with Peters analysis.

John Mc Gowan said...

I do, however, think, it's two people. A male and female, given the soft language, and lack of authoritative language. I maybe wrong?

Horse Chestnut said...

Has anyone seen Sugar Mountain, which is a movie supposedly about a situation very similar to this one??

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

A few oddities...

Of the first 140 words of this "letter":
"I"= 9 times
"you"= 8 times
"Sherri"= 2 times
"negotiator"= 1 time

The bulk of the letter is first person, singular, with "I" taking center stage (the self-aggrandizing is obvious with the attitude being"Here is what I will do"). Our hero then proceeds to tell the person(s) who are allegedly in control of the situation and Sherri what to do. This is one very self-important, narcissistic person, who is either in a position of managing others or would like to be. As Peter's already determined, paying the "ransom" is not his motivating factor. Note the authoritative tone of the letter. Is it the way you would address a supposed kidnapper or kidnappers, holding the love of your life who has always captured your heart?

As Carnival Barker posted above, if he has a hired negotiator, then why is he doing the negotiating? Note the author's priority: telling the "kidnapper" how important (i.e."big") and rich a man he is first, that he has his own super important negotiator (one who "has negotiated ransom releases for people all over the world"). This is called hyperbole (over the top exaggeration/fantasy). Note that the author is so busy being important that he doesn't introduce the negotiator until 137 words into the letter. Surprise! SMH As Peter said, it speaks to the writer's priority.

"This would be between you, my negotiator and me only."- The sentence is awkward for such an important business person. (It should read "This would only be between, you, my negotiator, and me.")

"my negotiator/"my hired negotiator":
Sentence 8-The writer introduce "my negotiator" (gender less)
Sentence 10-references the negotiator as "him"
Sentence 15-references the negotiator as "him"
Sentence 20-"my negotiator" becomes "my hired negotiator" and is referenced as "he"
Sentence 23- change in language with "my negotiator" (gender less)

"You can get a disposable phone at Wal-Mart or many other stores..."- I was surprised at the mention of Wal-Mart by name. Did anyone else find that unexpected?

"I have the cash ready to give to my negotiator 24/7 as soon as you out to him using the contact information below."- Would one really say this to an kidnapper? Any suggestion of being outed would threaten a kidnapper and kill any release for ransom deal instantly. The theatrical and "I"-heavy language in this is reminiscent of some of Keith's phrasing in his bizarre 20/20 statement.

For someone who wants to remain as anonymous as the kidnapper, the writer is publicly addressing not just the kidnapper, but the press, and both the Redding and Shasta County Sheriff's Departments. Not only addressing, but also challenging the police- the people that the family has charged with finding Sherri. Why? Perhaps the writer doesn't want Sherri "found" because the kidnapping is a hoax.

This very public addressing of multiple outlets, if you will, is a little reminiscent of both Keith Papini's statement that "We are a very private family whom do not use social media outlets prior to this grotesque tragedy." and Sheila Koester's assertions that "The Papinis are a private family...", while they utilized the press and social media to "spread her face" "around the world". Isn't the writer doing the same thing to spread his "fame", similarly to Keith in his 20/20 interview?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Peter- I'm not sure if you've seen this or not. I'm sorry I don't know how to embed the link. Sheila Koester conducted a very interesting (read extremely evasive, lacking significant personal details) interview after Sherri was found.


lynda said...

Wow..I am amazed at what was gleaned from the first couple sentences!

Cameron Gamble needs to be held accountable. I don't think anyone actually believed there was "an important businessman"..Cameron approached Keith according to Keith.

I particularly liked , "he will know you are lying immediately"..he will? Gamble is a human lie detector because he has dealt with kidnappers thruout the world.

Peter..I transcribed Keith Papini's 20/20 show. It is on the last Papini thread. I would LOVE to learn the analysis of that interview.

THat Sheriff must've been about to explode with this jag-off throwing this in the mix. I hope Gamble is charged with something eventually.

lynda said...

I also hope that the Sheriff reads this blog

Anonymous said...

It sounds like the writer is Keith Papini. He hired the so called international kidnapping expert and the description of the negotiator sounds like a description of Gamble. He is interested in money so he set up a gofundme. He would not want police to know who was doing it so he might pretend to be from far away. He has a stressed relationship with police. One wouldn't expect that kind of hostility from a stranger passing through town. He says he has gotten legal advice... where? when? A guy in town a few days hires a local lawyer and everything is all set up immediately? His advice to the kidnapper is condescending and fits with KP's profile.

Jasmine said...

Sounds like Cameron wrote the note himself. He's quoted on many blogs, that he didn't want FBI nor Police interference. Yep, he wrote it.was also looking for a fast buck which didn't happen..

Michele said...

New DNA testing planned in JonBennet Ramsey case.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

UK police helped "develop" evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents, according to the latest US diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks.

The American ambassador to Portugal, Al Hoffman, said the claim was made by his British counterpart, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, at a meeting in September 2007.

The cable did not specify what evidence was alleged to have been gathered.

The McCanns said Portuguese authorities had subsequently said there was no evidence against them.

'Media frenzy'

Details of the cable, which was sent to Washington by the US ambassador, have been published in the Guardian newspaper.

Mr Hoffman wrote: "Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents.

"Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively.

"He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors."

'Historic note'

Madeleine McCann was aged three when she disappeared from a holiday apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007.

Her parents Kate and Gerry McCann had official status as suspects, or arguido, until the Portuguese authorities shelved their investigation in July 2008.

A spokesman for the McCanns said: "This is an entirely historic note that is more than three years old.

"Subsequently, Kate and Gerry had their arguido status lifted, with the Portuguese authorities making it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever.

"To this day, they continue to work tirelessly on the search for their daughter, co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities."

The details are contained in the latest in a series confidential US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks to appear in the Guardian and several other newspapers around the world.


Again the famed spokesman for the mccanns, dear old clarence mitchell.

This though stood out and reveals so much.

"To this day, they continue to work tirelessly on the search for their daughter, co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities."

More specifically

co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities."

Another open mouth insert feet moment by someone who really should know better, unless, he is sabotaging them for his own gain which would surprise no one.

The mccanns never searched for their daughter, let alone tirelessly.

The only things they have worked tirelessly on is:

The fund and getting as much money in as possible any way possible.

Suing anyone who disagrees with their version of events, in particular the ex lead detective Dr. Goncalo Amaral, a man whom kate could never forgive and who she loathes with every cell of her being beyond rational thought, whilst at the same time, forgiving the alleged abductor who would have been raping and abusing her daughter!

Preserving their own reputations or, what is left of them.

I still think clarrie could face criminal charges of obstruction of justice.
Perverting the course of justice.
Obtaining money and services by deception.
Mail fraud (we gotta love his envelopes quote)
Possibly even conspiracy and other crimes.

Lis said...

Glad to see this. I feel that 'amateurish' sums this letter up.
The Gambles had a 'ministry' to tornado victims at one time - http://enterprisetornadoministry.blogspot.com/2007/03/100-of-excavator-cost-has-been-met.html

FoolsFeedOnFolly, The Walmart reference seemed odd to me, too. Maybe because it is too familiar? Like one is talking to a friend? It's like, "Hey, just head on down to the Walmart..." Would you say that to an unknown kidnapper?

OT Interesting story in the news about a former pastor who killed his daughter and may have killed his pregnant wife in the past http://nypost.com/2016/12/14/cops-re-examine-death-of-pastors-first-wife-after-horrific-murder-suicide/

Lis said...

Foolsfeedonfolly, I read your link- that was the strangest press conference I've ever seen.

Koester had no information to give other than they were 'excited' and 'joyful' to see each other.
She begins by saying that she is pregnant and asking people to be mindful of her emotions (don't ask hard questions?)

She was unwilling/unable to say:

Whether she has been reunited with her kids
How she is doing physically/anything about her injuries
Whether social media played any part in her release
Where she was when she heard the news Sherri was released
Whether ransom played a role in Sherri's release
What Sherri went through in the 22 days she was missing
Whether Sherri is afraid to be in the area
Whether Sherri was employed
Whether they know of anyone with a motive
What Sherri is doing today
Where Sherri is now
When she will return home
Whether Sherri's children understand she is back home

She did not respond to a question about whether she hopes the suspects are found.

Anonymous said...

Yes. Sherri and her husband with NPD.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the Ramsey note.

Jasmine said...

According to Keith Papini, LinkedIn account Papini graduated from Shasta College with an Associate degree in Administration of Justice......hmmm Why does that seem odd to me in light of this case? I know it was only an Associate Degree but he would have learned a lot about the justice system hmm...

Statement Analysis Blog said...

some interesting comments...

as to Anonymous comparison to Ramsey ransom note: point taken. There is the use of wording that seems to need to persuade that it is "official" language. I am working on a training manual currently that will use the Ramsey ransom note for threat analysis: know the author, know the threat.

Jasmine, it seems odd to you because of the fluidity evident: it makes sense if this is a ruse, or even if it did happen, the ruse of seeking money and having it blow up in their faces. good point.

I hope to do more on this case.

Tatiana said...

Thank you, Peter. I am thrilled that you yourself replied to one of my posts here. Also can't wait for more on all/any cases, fascinating!

BobBobJones said...

I definitely think something fishy is going on in this case, however, it is known that Cam Gamble ("negotiator") assisted in the wording of the letter. It is written in exactly Cam style - unnecessary details, inflated claims, etc.

There are screenshots of the communications between the AD and Cam talking about working on the letter together. It is possible that those were fake as well and this is all one person, but I just wanted to throw that out there.

Happy Healthy Hippie said...


This is a statement made by Cam on Reddit in a long interview. Could you please check this out Peter?

Things that stood out:

Police have not asked him for any evidence.

Not known if she was raped (shouldn't that have been done at hospital?!)

He bought throw away phones at Best Buy, seriously,was it Keith store?

Friend said is Love Story fairy tale that would make anyone jealous. (Nice story writing)

He asked friend hard questions like drug use or illegal involvement but didn't say he got answers.

Why make sure donor site translation to Spanish?! Already confirmed not a big Hispanic community and this is before we "knew 2 Hispanic females" did this so why say that?

The donor money. After she was "released", the funds were transferred, "ultimately ending up in donor account". Why not just say money returned?

And the obvious, missing right before election, in CA, where large Hispanic population, home on Thanksgiving, no statement in weeks from family or LE.

Thanks :)