Statement Analysis: Keith Papini's Public Statement
Here is the statement made by Keith Papini. He is the husband of Sherri Papini who was kidnapped, beaten and branded by two hispanic females, at gun point, but was released on Thanksgiving Day, 3 weeks after the abduction.
A Go Fund Me page was set up that stated its purpose was to "bring Sherri home", by the family. It raised $49,000 and has stopped taking donations.
At this time, there are no indications that the money was refunded. We note that she was simply dropped off.
After his wife was released, her husband made this statement. First is the statement and then the statement with analysis following.
Question for Analysis:
What is the purpose of this statement?
Does Keith Papini have publicity intentions in his language?
"The first thing I would like to address is the overwhelming amount of gratitude our entire family has for the thousands of people that have been on this torturous journey with us. I cannot possibly name each and every person, although their names are eternally etched in our hearts. Thank you to our strong family, devoted friends, the entire Redding community and countless communities around the world. Specific thanks to the Shasta County Sheriff's department, FBI, NorCal Alliance for the Missing, the Lost Coast Trackers, Shasta Support Services, the Guardian Angels, my own personal A-Team, Cameron Gamble, Cody Salfen, Jim Linnan, Sean Ditty, Don Armstrong, Yolo County Sheriff's Department and hospital, the medical personnel that helped our dear Sherri, social media and many news outlets. Thank you to LRT Graphics and Signarama. Thank you to the extremely generous, anonymous as well as named donors all over the world selflessly gave to our family. Thank you to the many incredible humans that have never known Sherri that facilitated in sharing our heart break across the globe. Sherri has always captured my heart, and it is no surprise that she has captured the hearts not only through the country but throughout the world. Thank you, truly, immensely, sincerely and with my entire heart.
Secondly, we live in a nation of free speech, accompanied with an era of technology that provides immediate gratification. This is a double-edged sword. I am grateful for this system, as it is what spread my wife's face quickly throughout the world, gaining the attention of thousands. The unfortunate side is that some people have been sitting in angering, expectant positions, waiting for the gory details.
Rumors, assumptions, lies and hate have been both exhausting and disgusting. Those people should be ashamed of their malicious, subhuman behavior. We are not going to allow those people to take away our spirit, love or rejoice in our girl found alive and home where she belongs. I understand people want the story, pictures, proof that this was not some sort of hoax, plan to gain money or some fabricated race war. I do not see a purpose in addressing each preposterous lie. Instead, may I give you a glimpse of the mixture of horror and elation that was my experience of reuniting with the love of my life and mother of our children.
Nothing could have prepared me for what I was about to see upon my arrival at the hospital nor the details of the true hell I was about to hear. The mental prison I was in over the past three weeks was shattered when my questions of my wife's reality became known.
The officers warned me to brace myself. My first sight was my wife in a hospital bed, her face covered in bruises ranging from yellow to black because of repeated beatings, the bridge of her nose broken.
Her now emaciated body of 87 pounds was covered in multicolored bruises, severe burns, red rashes and chain markings. Her signature long blond hair had been chopped off. She has been branded, and I could feel the rise of her scabs under my fingers. She was thrown from a vehicle with a chain around her waist, attached to her wrists and a bag over her head. The same bag she used to flag someone down once she was able to free one of her hands. Sherri was taken from us for 22 days and suffered incredibly through both intense physical agony and severe mental torture. My reaction was one of extreme happiness and overwhelming nausea as my eyes and hands scanned her body. I was filled with so much relief and revulsion at once. My Sherri suffered tremendously, and all the visions swirling in your heads of her appearance, I assure you, are not as graphic and gruesome as the reality.
We are a very private family [who] do not use social media outlets prior to this grotesque tragedy. My love for my wife took [precedence], and it was clear we had to be exposed in ways we never would have been comfortable with. So please have a heart and understand why we have asked for our privacy. This will be along road of healing for everyone. Ultimately, it was Sherri's will to survive that brought her home. Thank you."
Here is the same statement with emphasis added for analysis:
The first thing I would like to address is the overwhelming amount of gratitude our entire family has for the thousands of people that have been on this torturous journey with us. I cannot possibly name each and every person, although their names are eternally etched in our hearts.
We note that he begins with a numeric. This is often an indication of logic and preparation within a statement. When we see its use we look for secondary and tertiary points to follow.
He addresses the "overwhelming amount of gratitude our "entire" family has for specific people who are:
"thousands of people."
These "thousands of people" were on the same "torturous journey" with "us", with "us" being, in context, the "entire" family.
Regarding these "thousands", he says that he cannot name them all but they although these thousands of people have their names etched upon their hearts. It is impossible to have the names of thousands etched upon their hearts.
This is a demonstration of hyperbole. The statement has begun with "thousands of people" being addressed as his starting point.
Question: What is the priority of his statement?
Answer: To address thousands of people.
This is where he chose to begin his statement (a) and he used hyperbolic language in doing so (b), so we should see if the rest of this statement confirms what appears to be his priority:
reaching thousands of people.
Objection: His purpose is to thank the thousands of people.
Answer: That is not what his words show.
It is not to "thank" them, but to "address" them. This is the word he chose before thanking them.
We do not know who these "thousands of people" are, but "each and every one" of them is etched in their hearts for all eternity.
We consider in his language the word "etched" here. To "etch" is to mark or engrave.
This is curious language when we consider the report that the victim, Sherri, was "branded" in some form, on her body.
He now issues a thank you:
Thank you to our strong family, devoted friends, the entire Redding community and countless communities around the world.
The "thank you" is issued here, not to "thousands of people" who can't be named but are etched in their hearts.
1. "our strong family"
2. "devoted" friends
3. the entire Redding community
4. "countless communities around the world"
We now see not only the order indicating priority, but we have the subject addressing "countless" number of "communities", not in the area, nor even in the United States, but "around the world."
His "thousands of people" include those in different countries. One might wonder what these "thousands of communities" had to do with the abduction of his wife.
Why are they listed as "communities" here? This would be to divide them, or partition them off, specifically by "community."
After the list of people who begin with family, and then specify certain friends that are "devoted", (which brings to question if there were friends that were not "devoted" in this "journey" with the family) but on to strangers in the community and those "communities" that are international; all before local law enforcement who actually worked to find Sherri.
The formal and strong "thank you" is now "thanks", specifically to:
Specific thanks to the Shasta County Sheriff's department, FBI,
These are two law enforcement agencies
NorCal Alliance for the Missing, the Lost Coast Trackers, Shasta Support Services,
These are search organizations
the Guardian Angels,
This is a voluntary protection group.
my own personal A-Team,
This is a strange reference. Here we have the first inclusion of the personal pronoun "my" for the subject himself (Keith Papini), making this very important to him. Prior to this it is "our" so we note the first inclusion of a change to a more personal reference.
Having a personal "team", particularly an "A team" is a term closely related to celebrity status.
Cameron Gamble, Cody Salfen, Jim Linnan, Sean Ditty, Don Armstrong,
The order will likely be understood by those named, but then he returns to law enforcement and medical professionals:
Yolo County Sheriff's Department and hospital, the medical personnel that helped our dear Sherri,
We now have another reference to the personal possessive pronoun:
"my personal A team"
"our dear Sherri"
This is to take personal ownership of his A team, but not Sherri.
In Statement Analysis, we simply make a list of all the names that enter a statement and place them in order.
There are two very strong points to consider:
1. Sherri has many names listed before her, though she was the victim;
2. The change in possessive pronoun "my" to "our" relegates Sherri as less important than his personal A team.
Sherri is not the priority of this statement.
It also indicates a less than close relationship with Sherri. Please keep this in mind as you listen to his words.
social media and many news outlets.
he continues his theme of external and distant contacts to be addressed.
He now goes to business:
Thank you to LRT Graphics and Signarama.
He now goes to those who have given money to help "bring Sherri home" as he stated, without equivocation, that Sherri was not "missing" but was abducted:
Thank you to the extremely generous, anonymous as well as named donors all over the world selflessly gave to our family.
These did not give to search efforts, but to "our family." This is consistent with the wording used at Go Fund Me: the money was going to the Papini "family" and not to search and recovery companies.
Note again the inclusion of the "world" here.
Thank you to the many incredible humans that have never known Sherri that facilitated in sharing our heart break across the globe.
He does not say that those who "don't know" Sherri, but "have never known" Sherri. One might wonder if the subject (speaker) has plans to reach these "incredible humans" (those that gave money are "humans") by introducing Sherri to them.
Sherri has always captured my heart, and it is no surprise that she has captured the hearts not only through the country but throughout the world.
That Sherri "has always captured my heart" is an indication of a troubled relationship.
It is unnecessary to say, and it comes low in priority after showing a stronger linguistic connection to his "personal" A team.
That it is unnecessary, it is his need to tell "all the world" that Sherri has "always" captured his heart is to show that there is not only a need to persuade, but the language also suggests:
there was a particular time where Sherri likely did not "capture" his heart. In analysis, there is a difference between:
"Sherri always captured my heart" and the slightly longer
"Sherri has always captured my heart"
This elongates time, also unnecessarily, but it brings into question the consistency of having his heart captured by someone whom he "shares", verbally, in a statement where he does not share his own personal A team. They are not Sherri's but his. He has his own personal A team. It would be interesting to talk to them, particularly the one named last, and then to learn who is on his B team. Could the word "captured" also be a form of possible leakage ?
Thank you, truly, immensely, sincerely and with myentire heart.
Police got "thanks" but the "humans" get the full "thank you" with:
d. his heart
e. his entire heart This is hyperbole, again, regarding his 'thanks' and is very weak. Too many "very's" used shows the opposite; contempt.
These "humans" who gave money are given a greater linguistic closeness than his wife, the victim.
He has finished his first "logical" portion and now moves to the second numeric:
Secondly, we live in a nation of free speech, accompanied with an era of technology that provides immediate gratification.
The victim, who is not "my wife Sherri" but "our Sherri", was in an "unknown" danger for 3 weeks, beaten, broken, and branded. He gave more words about money givers than about the victim. Now, his second point begins with language that includes
Since she was gone for 3 weeks, it is interesting to see him use these words.
The "second" point begins with only the "nation" and not the "communities of the world", with "free speech." He now lectures the nation:
This is a double-edged sword.
This is an expression to show cutting on two sides:
I am grateful for this system, as it is what spread my wife's face quickly throughout the world, gaining the attention of thousands. The unfortunate side is that some people have been sitting in angering, expectant positions, waiting for the gory details.
Here he addresses the acute need to say
"this was not a hoax" plainly. We look for him to tell us that it was not a hoax, but that he is just glad that she is safe. We now look to hear the denial.
Will it be a simple, 3 prong reliable denial?
Will it be something he denies and quickly moves on because, being untrue, it is not of any concern to him?
Our expectation, therefore, is a quick denial and few words necessary:
The unfortunate side is that some people have been sitting in angering, expectant positions, waiting for the gory details.
The only thing the public knew was that she was missing. Yet, what wording does he use?
"Gory" is what is used to describe her injuries. This is not something the public had knowledge of until he announced it. In fact, the police deliberately withheld the "gory details" with the sheriff later telling the public that he is concerned that the investigation may have been compromised by the husband's release of the details.
Note the language of "sitting", shows an increase in tension for the subject (Keith), not for the people.
He says that they were sitting (body posture) and were angry and expectant.
What were they angry about?
In context, he tells us that they were "angry" while "sitting" because they were expecting the "gory details."
One might wonder how he knows that people were angry or even how the public might be expecting anything but news of her return?
These "people" are different than the "humans" who gave money to him. This is a perfect place for him to say
"This was not a hoax" for us.
Rumors, assumptions, lies and hate have been both exhausting and disgusting.
He does not deny that it is a hoax. Instead he addresses the impact upon him (as the subject) that "rumors", "assumptions", "lies" and the emotion of "hate" had upon him:
it was "exhausting" and "disgusting."
When someone is kidnapped, the innocent care not for anything but recovery of the victim.
Yet, rumors "exhausted" and "disgusted" him. This indicates he had the energy and time to pay attention to such things. But what things, specifically, did he expend both time and energy upon?
Rumors are a part of every news story of a disappearance as a result of alerting the public. It is natural for the public to wonder "why would someone kidnap a middle aged mother?"
This is a normal part of news: who done it? why? where? when? how?
In fact, investigators do scan social media, news story comments and blogs because they are open minded professionals who will willingly pick up information and ideas wherever they may be found. After work, they go home and go online and seek.
Rumors get people talking and exchanging information. We saw in the McCanns how they deliberately withheld information from the public that would have possibly helped locate a kidnapped child, such as her basic description.
This is akin to rumors where one rumor may gain strength.
What lies is he talking about? If someone has lied about his wife, this is a perfect time to address it.
"Hate" is used to silence opposition. It is to ascribe an emotion to a person to stop their opinion.
This is very concerning.
In the recent analysis of the McCanns' deception, one woman on Facebook repeatedly posted "stop the hate" of the McCanns, as if obsessively posting this phrase would cause people to stop intelligent dialog and say "I don't want to be guilty of "hate", so I better disengage my intellect." It is difficult to imagine someone who thinks this way but when one considers that this same person is dedicating her life to a family not known, not met, not paid for, and will never meet, there arises the awareness of greater issues to cope with.
It is the modern deceptive technique that seeks to squelch free speech. It is interesting that he has the energy to even address free speech while seeking to squelch it. In the very least, here is where he can address lies, rumors or anything else, with a simple denial.
Why would he have the wherewithal, given the celebration of his wife, who was 'lost but now is found', to even address this?
Please consider where he began his statement as to his priority. Thus far, the analysis has shown that reaching the public at large, with his message, is his priority; not his wife's life being spared.
Those people should be ashamed of their malicious, subhuman behavior.
We now have "human" and "subhuman" in his language. What is the difference?
He first introduced "human" in his statement to describe those who gave him money.
He now counters with "subhuman" being those who doubted his narrative, therefore, not giving him money.
One would wonder how someone diligently spending 3 weeks trying to care for his children while finding his wife would have the time to be both "exhausted" and "disgusted" by anyone who is "not part of the community" of "thousand" who is now deemed to be "sub human."
It is also interesting to note that this is the language of supremacists.
In Nazi Germany, the ideology held that those of Germanic origin were superior to others.
In Islam, the Muslim is considered (at least the male) superior to non Muslims, though a woman, in Islam, is only "half" the value, yet she is still of more value than the "kuffar" women who are known to be such because they are "uncovered"; therefore, eligible for rape.
He uses the language of supremacy in his statement. This is something that should be thoroughly explored by police.
"Sub human" is a specific term used by supremacists, which the off shoot of national socialism is the "skin head" or "White Supremacist."
One should now explore the Papini background to learn if there is any connection to any form of supremacist ideologies.
Those who are not supreme are "sub human", in his vocabulary. Those who are supremacists believe that they are superior and in control:
We are not going to allow those people to take away our spirit, love or rejoice in our girl found alive and home where she belongs.
He does not use the personal "I" here but "we" and will not "allow" them to take away "our", not "his" spirit and love, though they exhausted and disgusted him.
Note he uses the phrase, "our girl", not "my girl" and "home where she belongs" is unnecessary language. When found in "control" and with "sub human", one should consider the possibility of domestic violence.
Women in domestically violent relationships rarely experience violence. They are controlled, instead, by the threat of violence. They live life under another's control and learn how to keep themselves safe, while living under incessant tension. It shows in their language.
I understand people want the story, pictures, proof that this was not some sort of hoax, plan to gain money or some fabricated race war.
Now he changes the language to "people" who want 3 things:
1. the story
That this is not a hoax.
But he is not done there. He introduces two important elements:
1. gain money
2. race war
He raised $49,000.
He uses the language of neo-nazi (or white) supremacists.
He now introduces both motives as possible.
It is here where having introduced it, he should deny it.
I do not see a purpose in addressing each preposterous lie.
He gives us all the issues with detail and how important they are to him and why they should be addressed. Here he tells us, in the negative, what he does not see.
He is not truthful.
Instead, may I give you a glimpse of the mixture of horror and elation that was my experience of reuniting with the love of my life and mother of our children.
He employs the deceptive technique of diversion.
This shows not only a need to deceive, but a rehearsed example of knowing what he planned to do. This affirms the analysis point of the numeric: logical thought and follow through.
Lying causes internal stress.
Rather than lie outright, he uses a diversion that includes emotion.
He chided the sub humans for wanting gory details but instead now offers them, himself.
This is to associate self with the sub humans he condemns. This is a subtle connection that shows knowledge that what he is understanding is directly related to the "rumors" and the "lies" that said this is about "hoax", "money" or "race war."
He now enters strongly into the statement, for himself, with a psychological entrance that has not been previously seen. We should now pay careful attention:
Nothing could have prepared me for what I was about to see upon my arrival at the hospital nor the details of the true hell I was about to hear.
The "hell" is not for the victim, but for himself.
This is consistent with his lack of personal ownership or connection to the victim.
The mental prison I was in over the past three weeks was shattered when my questions of my wife's reality became known.
Here he was in mental prison and he had this prison "shattered"; is this a good thing?
The incongruity of being "in prison" and then having the prison "shattered" to set him free is not lost upon listeners.
Note that this has been all about him and not about the victim. It continues here:
The officers warned me to brace myself. My first sight was my wife in a hospital bed, her face covered in bruises ranging from yellow to black because of repeated beatings, the bridge of her nose broken.
He does not write of his wife's injuries.
He writes of his own perception of them. This is the language of narcissism.
Her now emaciated body of 87 pounds
Sherri is not 87 pounds. This is not in his language. It is her body that is 87 pounds.
was covered in multicolored bruises, severe burns, red rashes and chain markings.
She is not covered with these things; her body is. This is to make a distancing point separating her from her body. He is not done yet though:
Her signature long blond hair had been chopped off.
"Signature": this is both the language of marketing and of neo nazi white supremacy.
She has been branded,
He did not say "she was branded" but "has been" which lengthens time. This should raise concern about possible knowledge.
Her body and her "signature blonde hair" is how she appears to him. The rumors, lies etc, were what made him exhausted and disgusted.
and I could feel the rise of her scabs under my fingers.
It is not her scabs, but what he could feel, that is what he states.
She was thrown from a vehicle with a chain around her waist,
Here is passivity which is used to conceal identity and/or responsibility. Expected is: "They threw here", or "Her captors" threw her...
Why would he need to use passivity?
One might argue that not knowing the identity of the assailants would suffice, but the context suggests otherwise: this is his wife who others personally put hands on to harm. There is an expectation of a very strong linguistic disposition towards the kidnappers as harsh, angry and of one very up close and personal.
Yet, we have heard little about Sherri, a priority about promotional activities, and nothing about the brutal kidnappers.
attached to her wrists and a bag over her head. The same bag she used to flag someone down once she was able to free one of her hands.
This is not part of the "gory" details but is consistent with evidence verification.
One might wonder why he would have a need to "verify" evidence. This, too, is very concerning.
Sherri was taken from us for 22 days and suffered incredibly through both intense physical agony and severe mental torture.
Here he begins, not with Sherri's suffering, but from "our" perspective: she was not taken from him, but from "us."
The need to share here is a red flag of concern.
This is the scope of a sentence that consists of her suffering, mentioned as an afterward point of from whom she was taken.
Also note that "was taken" is not "kidnapped" but continues the soft, passive theme.
My reaction was one of extreme happiness and overwhelming nausea as my eyes and hands scanned her body.
Note we hear so little of what it was like for the victim, but point after point about what it was like for him.
What was her reaction to being brutalized?
I was filled with so much relief and revulsion at once.
What was she filled with when kidnapped, beaten, starved and branded?
My Sherri suffered tremendously, and all the visions swirling in your heads of her appearance, I assure you, are not as graphic and gruesome as the reality.
Even here, with her suffering, she is now "my Sherri", personally his, with the suffering: but the suffering is specific, it is
To whom is "appearance" impacted?
It is Keith.
"I assure you" is the language of those who feel a need to call upon reinforcements in order to be believed.
He has addressed the "thousands" of "humans" who gave money. They are no longer accepting donations. After various media and social media, there is left the investigation.
What does he now want?
We are a very private family do not use social media outlets prior to this grotesque tragedy.
Notice what he tells us in the negative: they do "not" use social media outlets prior to this 'kidnapping', (which he avoids) calling it a "grotesque tragedy."
What does this statement indicate?
It indicates a very strong need to search social media for statements made by this very private family, specifically prior to this "tragedy" by police.
He is literally calling attention to any possible statements on social media made by him, Sherri or someone in the family before this happened.
Remember: he could tell us anything he wants. He has chosen to address what they did not do prior to the kidnapping.
He is telling police to investigate this.
My love for my wife took [precedence], and it was clear we had to be exposed in ways we never would have been comfortable with.
What is the focus here?
"my love"; that is, his love for his wife.
Here he is telling us that there are things on social media he does not want found.
He knew this before hand, but his love was so great that he allowed it to be for her sake.
So please have a heart and understand why we have asked for our privacy.
The sub humans do not possess a heart. He urges them to do so. How can they become "human" since Go Fund Me is closed?
Answer: stop looking in social media at things they have posted, which never existed anyway.
Sherri was beaten, nose broken, branded and starved but he has the lack of self awareness to talk about healing for anyone beside the victim:
This will be along road of healing for everyone.
Who gets the reward for Sherri's recovery?
Ultimately, it was Sherri's will to survive that brought her home. Thank you.
Keith Papini has something to hide.
Keith Papini's statement reveals a priority of capitalizing upon what happened to Sherri.
He revels a narcissistic-like focus upon self while showing a neutral linguistic disposition towards the kidnappers.
He does not deny this being a hoax. I cannot deny it for him.
He uses phrases consistent with both neo-nazi supremacists and those involved in domestic violence.
He introduces various motives, including money and race, but declines to deny them both.
He has raised $50,000 from Go Fund Me, and has a very favorable view of those who donated, of whom he calls "humans" which is very unusual. He used "plastering her face" and "signature" blonde hair which are terms associated with publicity. This is consistent with "my personal A team."
In using this most unexpected (and unnecessary) designation (calling humans "human") we soon learn why.
He calls humans who gave to him "humans" while calling those who doubted the account and did not give him money "sub humans."
Keith has his own "A team" like a celebrity has an entourage. He shows linguistically a closeness to them that he does not have with his wife.
His concern and focus is him, including how her injuries impacted him. Where does he finally take 'ownership' of her? Contextually, with her injuries and marketing.
If people doubted the veracity of this account before his appearance on television, it is very likely there will be more doubt now.
Without Sherri's statement to analyze, we are left only with his. He is not truthful about seeing no need to issue a denial, but is deceptive at this exact point. He recognizes in detail these allegations, but refuses to answer them.
Her "signature blonde hair" is to use the word "signature", which is modern language of branding or "brand." It is not lost that "blondes" and "Germanic origin" of the national socialists is something associated with the neo nazi movement.
He shows no animosity towards the kidnappers, of whom she spent 3 weeks with yet reports show that she has not given any detailed description of other than "two hispanic females." This statement is all about him; not the victim. He affirms the priority of publication that he began his statement with. His priority was publicity, not Sherri. This remained consistent throughout his statement.