Friday, October 27, 2017

Sherri Papini: Husband's 911 Call with Q & A

This is the reported emergency call made by Keith Papini to report his wife missing.  
Transcript of the 911 call:
[CHP transfers Keith Papini to the 911 dispatcher.]
This is from Mercury News.  What we cannot tell with certainty, if this is where the subject (caller, Papini) began his account.  Did he give information initially, only to then be transferred?
This is very important because in an emergency call, where the subject begins is always important, and indicates a level of priority.

We now must consider: 
Is this a form of "contamination" in the statement?  
As a precaution to the possibility, we reduce the level of sensitivity assigned.  Note that he begins with "Yeah", which is often an "agreement", which may be in response to something the emergency operator already said
Papini: Yeah, um, so I just got home from work, and my wife wasn’t there, which is unusual, and my kids should’ve been there now from like day care, so I was like, “Oh, maybe she went on a walk.” Um, I couldn’t find her so I called the day care to see what time she picked up the kids. The kids were never picked up. So I got freaked out so I hit like the Find My iPhone app thing, and it said that — it showed her phone at like the end of our driveway, we don’t have really good service …
We cannot conclude that him just getting home from work is his priority, as this seems like a response to something else. 
The order:
1.  Himself:  Getting home
2.  Missing:  wife not "there" (indication that he may not be calling from the location)
Editorial:  "which is unusual" 
3.  Kids:  not picked up from day care 
Editorial:  "so I was like..." to report his thought process. 
Editorial:  "So I freaked out so..."
4.  Evidence:  Phone location:  due to emotion, he hit "Find My iPhone" service.  
Although it is difficult to discern if this is being freely offered or in response to an earlier explanation (before transfer), either way, he anticipates being asked,
"Why did you hit Find My iPhone?" before being asked this question.  
In an emergency call, subjects generally have no need to explain or even state their own emotions.  
Why not?
Because the emotions are evident in the call; they do not need to be stated, unless the subject feels a need to make sure the police (emergency) know his emotions.  
It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which an operator asked a question about his emotions or state of mind. 
What is not known is this:
Had he already said, "I am reporting my wife missing" and now is explaining this in step by step detail. 
He either stated this alone in an open statement (A) or he already reported it before the transfer (B). 
The analysis of (A) is very different, therefore, than it is in (B). 
This is an example of statement contamination.  
One (A) is very concerning, while the other (B) may have concerns alleviated by that which preceded his answer. 
The Need to Explain "Why" in an open statement. 
We highlight the need to explain "why" in an open statement as very sensitive information if this need is not self-evident.  We don't highlight every "so, since, therefore, because" as such.  When it is an unnecessary explanation offered, we recognize the subject is thinking, "they're going to ask me why I..." and seeks to preempt it.  By "self evident", I mean that the explanation is necessary due to context. 
It is such a powerful tool that it often solves crimes on its own before an investigation even begins.  There are a number of examples of the first call to police (emergency, 911) where we know what happened and "who done it" by the call, alone. 
When it appears to be used in a way that suggests that investigators have not likely even thought to ask this question, it should be considered the highest level of sensitivity in analysis. 
911: OK.
That the operator lets the subject continue suggests that initial vital formation was given before the transfer.  
Papini: … Not the end of our driveway, but the end of our street. I just drove down there and I saw her phone with her headphones, because she started running again, and it’s — I found her phone, and it’s got like hair ripped out of it, like in the headphones, so I’m like totally freaking out thinking like somebody grabbed her.
He feels the need to assert his emotional state again.  This is not necessary.  A man who cannot find his wife and then finds her phone with apparent hair ripped out on it, is freaked out.  
I cannot tell if the need to explain why her phone and headphones were together ("running again") is an open need to explain before being asked, or if this is in response to something else stated before the transfer. 
[911 dispatcher gets his address and his name.]
911: Did you go pick up your children?
Papini: No, I’m going to call my mom and have her do it. I’m going to like knock on every door
[911 cuts him off, gets his wife’s name and birthdate.]
911: Is her vehicle there, or does she not have a vehicle?
Papini: She has a vehicle, it was at the house. She’s running. Yes, I’m in it right now, driving, and I took a picture of her phone on the ground before I picked it up.
He had the wherewithal to note the phone as evidence (photo) and the wherewithal to report contaminating the evidence ("before I picked it up") but the need to report his emotional state.  
911: OK, how tall is she?
Papini: Five-three, five-four.
911: How much does she weigh?
Papini: Hundred pounds.
911: Eye color?
Papini: Uh, like a … bluish … blue.
911: Hair color?
Papini: Blond.
911: Do you know what she was wearing? Is there something she always wears …
Papini: No. I’m assuming she went running, so athletic-type clothing.
911: OK, so there’s not an outfit she usually wears or anything like that? Does she run with a dog, or by herself?
Papini: By herself.
911: What time were the kids supposed …
Papini [interrupting]: She just started running again, and we live in a sketchy … [trails off]. I’m sorry, I’m super [unintelligible].

We note the inclusion of "I'm sorry" in any 911 call. 
"I'm super" was cut off by the operator. He might have addressed his emotions again.  
911: When’s the last time you heard from her?
Papini: She sent me a text asking me if I was coming home for lunch. She’s got a whole bunch of missed
He does not answer the question. This follows after several direct answers, which is good, but he now wants to give detail on the means of communication rather than the time.  
911: What time was that?
Even though the operator wants to know the time, it is very foolish to interrupt.  The subject has the information.  The operator cannot get it by speaking. 
Papini: Give me one second. … She sent me a text at 10:47 asking me if I was coming home for lunch, from work. And I said, “Sorry, long day.” And that was the last — I never spoke to her on the phone or had any other contact with her.
This is the second time "I'm sorry" has entered his language.  
Besides having a strong need to offer his emotions, he also has a need to report what he did not do: talk on the phone with her or have other contact.  This is to preempt being accused. 
Linguistic Profile:  Even if not involved in this, he gives indication that he is not likely someone of whom suspicion would be out of the question. 
911: What time were the kids supposed to be picked up?
Papini: Way before 5:30. She usually goes at like 4:45-ish, 4:30, 4:45.
911: Are you headed back to the house or — where are you at right now?
compound question. 
Papini: I’m at the end of the driveway, where, uh, I’m at the … Old Oregon Trail and Sunrise, where they meet, ’cause that’s right where I found her phone on the ground. [Unintelligible] telling me that something happened to her, is the way I’m looking at it. There’s like hair in the headphones. Like it got ripped off, like they grabbed —
911: Yeah, no, I, I understand, I understand.
Papini: OK. I’m sorry, I know you’re trying to keep me calm, but [crosstalk].
We now note the third time this is in his vocabulary.  
Let's assume, for this example, that he does not have any guilt involved in this case, if the case is a hoax for the purpose of intended exploitation of some kind.  
If he is not involved in it, his language tells us that being involved in some form of wrong doing/exploitation is not something foreign to him.  
When someone has guilt in general, even when not specifically involved in the reported event, we see this type of language of persuasion, including his need to make certain that police authority know his emotional state.  We see this type of language in those who exploit, including "fake hate" and "Go Fund Me" formats. 
911: OK. What kind of vehicle are you in?
Papini: I’m in a black Kia Optima.
[Sound of typing.]
Papini: Oh my God.  And I live down, I mean we live down kind of a sketchy street, so I definitely — I don’t know if I’m allowed to knock on everybody’s door but I will if I’m allowed to do that.
Noted inclusion of Deity. 
Noted his second reference to be seen as helpful.  He was previously going to knock on "every" door; but now he is backing away from that, seeking permission. 
911: Let’s just have the officers contact you, so they can start, you know, processing everything and figure out what’s going on, OK?
Papini: [Heavy exhale.]
911: I understand you’re freaking out a little bit. We wanna, we wanna make sure we get your kids, make sure they’re OK
yes, he has said it enough. 
Papini: Yeah, I’m going to call my mom and have her — [crosstalk, then deleted portion where he gives his phone number]. Do you want me to wait right here for somebody?
911: If you want to head back to your residence, they can contact you there, and in case she does return.
Papini: OK.
911: OK. We’ll have them contact you at your residence. And call us back if anything changes, all right?

Analysis Conclusion:  Inconclusive 
The information appears to be incomplete.  That which preceded his statement may have caused possible contamination of the words. We see in  some short responses, including his use of the word "vehicle" that he does parrot words back.  
The subject passed a polygraph and has offered a second one.  We do not know what questions were asked. 
Even with missing information, there are some concerns within this call.  It is not known if the missing information would satisfy these concerns, or heighten them. 
1.  Even if the subject does not have a criminal record (convictions), his language reflects someone who others might suspect of wrongdoing, specifically in theft or exploitation. 
2.  He has a need to be seen as more than what he is presenting. 
3.  He has a need to be seen as one in a highly emotional state.  This is, in his language, a form of persuasion.  He repeatedly told or sought to tell the operator what  he does not need to be state:  his emotional state.   
4. He has a need to be seen as helpful.  This too, is unnecessary.  What husband of a missing wife would be anything but helpful? 
5.  Guilt 
He has a need to unburden his conscience.  "I'm sorry"is used three times in one call.  In one usage, he says he is "sorry" for his emotions, which he has described already. 
The use of "I'm sorry" indicates that he has something of regret or a reason to be "sorry."  By itself, the usage is not conclusive.  We flag it always, but often find it found in the language of "guilty callers" in a variety of crimes.  One example is the 911 call of Casey Anthony.  It is something we prioritize very low, as we must have strong indicators of deception above it.  
Question:  is there something else that could cause someone to so regularly cite his emotions?
Answer:  Yes.  Some who are in therapy or counseling will become "analyze" their own feelings often in inappropriate settings.  They can often come across as self-absorbed and immature.  
5.  He has carefully, while "freaking out", handled evidence. 
6.  He has preempted some questions regarding his actions. This could be guilty knowledge of a scam now, or it could relate back to the part of the profile that recognizes one who although not involved here, is not above suspicion due to past involvements in unethical and/or illegal matters. 
He has passed his polygraph and is not considered a suspect in her disappearance. 
He does, however, raise red flags about his own character.  
Question:  if Sherri Papini, herself, has been involved in past false claims, could this show up in sensitivity in his language, here?
Answer:  Yes.  He could go into this feeling the need to prove and justify where no such need or justification is warranted.  
With husbands and wives, there can be a form of shared guilt. 
Question:  could "sketchy" circumstances impact his language?
Answer:   Yes.
Deception, and even guilt ("I'm sorry") could enter the language in this scenario for other reasons, including possibly infidelity on his or even his wife's part.  
There was a media report that she was may have been texting another man, at one point, while there was another report that suggested that Sherri had a history of blaming hispanics. 
Question:  Could he show sensitivity and guilt if he was thinking of exploitation?
Answer:   Yes.  If you look at the statements of Davey Blackburn, his wife was not yet buried and he had already planned his own capitalization of her death with advertising.  In his case, it was extreme.  He showed no concern about his wife's killers coming after him or his son.  His linguistic priority?  How many people would attend his church, including attendance on line.  
In Blackburn's case, his deceptive responses could also include sexuality.  
There is a reason why Keith Panini's brain produced "I'm sorry" three times in a single call.  There is something he is "sorry" about.  
If there is a transcript of Keith Panini's initial call, before transfer, it would be useful in moving from "inconclusive" result to a substantial one. 
         We do not have strong indications of deception in this call.

We cannot conclude alibi building because of the call transfer indicating missing information.  
Question:  Do you trust the polygraph?
Answer:   Yes. 
I don't know the questions asked but when done with a subject's own words, it is almost impossible to beat a polygraph.  \
Question:  Have you ever had your analysis conflict with polygraph results?
Answer:  Yes.  It has happened only twice in the years I have analyzed.  
In one case, a young girl accused her mother's boyfriend of inappropriate touching of her.  Both the alleged victim and the perpetrator wrote out statements of what happened. 
The statements were in agreement regarding all detail of time and location. 
The subject passed his polygraph. 
I submitted the analysis which showed that the girl was truthful and the subject was deceptive, for review, to an expert.  He confirmed the analysis as correct, including when it happened and where it happened. 
The mother's boyfriend moved back into the house.  
Quite a bit of time later, I learned that he had reoffended.  
In discussing the case with the police investigator, it appeared that the suspect "tickled" the victim (his language) but the polygraph asked if he "molested" her. 
In the other case, a man came home and found his girlfriend and 7 year old son dead.  He passed his polygraph, was cooperative and the case closed by agreement between coroner and district attorney:  the despondent mother took her son's life and her own. To this, the forensic evidence appeared to agree. The case was closed.  
The only evidence I had was his 911 call. I concluded that he (the boyfriend) did, in fact, murder them, also citing within the call, his motive (greed), as well as a profile that was not supported by the record (Domestic Violence and child abuse). 
The DA would not reopen the case unless the Coroner changed his finding. 
The investigator believed the analysis, and the analysis conclusion was sent to the coroner so he would consider changing the cause of death to "homicide unknown."  The Analysis Report was a step by step explanation as to why the conclusion was guilt. 
The coroner changed the cause of death and the DA reopened the case and the suspect was arrested.  
Two years later, he was quickly convicted by a jury who learned not only of his violent background (affirmed in collateral interviews) but learned that he attempted to steal the woman's house from her. When she realized what he was doing, he killed her.  
These are the only times analysis and polygraph results have not matched. I hold the polygraph in very high regard and believe, if the subject's own wording is used, that it is fool-proof. 
The best example is:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" by President Clinton. 
This is a very strong denial. 
When we learn that he told Ms. Lewinsky that his personal subjective understanding of "sexual relations" is "intercourse", if asked this question in a polygraph, he would have passed.  He knew this and was an accomplished habitual liar.  
All the prosecutor needed to have done was to ask,
"What is 'sexual relations'?
False results are rare, but among them, most will be a failure to catch the liar.  It is most unlikely that a polygraph result will show deception where there is none. 
Statement Analysis recognizes that the words one speaks, more than anything else, including body language and facial expressions, tell the true story. 
With an average internal dictionary of 25,000 words, a human being will process this vocabulary into an answer in less than a millisecond of time. 
The need to deceive disrupts this process and it is where our accuracy comes from. 
If you or your department wishes training, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services
We have seminars for law enforcement and private corporations, and offer at-home training for individuals, both law enforcement and civilian.  


Anonymous said...

Papini: Oh my God. And I live down, I mean we live down kind of a sketchy street,

Why does he change pronouns.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the change in pronouns something I noticed as well. And with as many times as he referenced the phone, shouldn't that make it sensitive to him? When I was going through it myself, I went back just to see if there was something I missed about the phone, but I didn't find anything.

Peregrine said...

I too, want to be all over him about involvement as it seems odd among other things that he'd not call her directly before trying to locate the phone through an app...unless that's how you track your wife because you already don't trust her or call her all day?
Back to my armchair...sigh.

Jeannine520 said...

Regarding the start of his statement with, "Yeah", I want to mention an oddity of northern California dialect that may or may not apply here. There are many men in this area that start talking with a, "yeah", for no reason at all. It seems most prevalent in blue collar guys his age and younger in rural and rural/suburban areas. Both of my brothers and most of their friends when initially starting to talk to someone will start like that, especially on the phone. An example would be if my brother calls me on the phone and I answer, "Hello?", he will respond with, "Yeah, I was gonna stop by your house and wanted to make sure you were home."

Anonymous said...

Exactly my thoughts, Peregrine, and if he regularly kept tabs on her with it that would also explain why he anticipated being asked about it.

Anonymous said...

He says at one point that he found the phone at the end of the driveway, and corrects himself and says the end of the street, but when asked where he is, he says he's at the end of the driveway because that's where he found the phone. Do they live on a corner where these two places were only a few feet apart? If they don't, this sounds inconsistent. It was far enough for him to state that he "just drove down there", which sounds suspect in itself. Isn't there a rule about "just"? Missing time?

Anonymous said...

911 call logs shed light on kidnapped woman's past

A 911 call log from 2003 recently released by California police reveal that the mother of Sherri Papini, the 34-year-old woman who went missing for three weeks in November after she claimed she was kidnapped while jogging, told police that her daughter was "harming herself and blaming it on [her.]"...

A call log from the Shasta County Sheriff's Office dated Dec. 17, 2003, indicates that Papini's mother, Loretta Graeff, alleged that her then-21-year-old daughter had been harming herself and blaming it on her. The log, obtained by The Sacramento Bee and shared with ABC News, also states that Loretta Graeff wanted "advice" because her daughter was planning on moving back in with her.


GeekRad said...

We do know that Sherri has invented situations in the past. I think her husband's responses reflect his guilt or concern over that. Not that he is guilty, that he doesn't feel completely comfortable with calling 911 with the possibility she is staging an abduction. I doubt we'll get much in the way of statements from the Papinis.

Anonymous said...

"We live down kind of a sketchy street" kind of reminds me of coyotes in the alley.

Anonymous said...

I noticed that he says several times that she just started running again. This is something he seems to want Law Enforcement to know. Is it because he expected people who know Sherri to say that she doesn't run anymore?

Anonymous said...

"our driveway" and "our street" but"my kids". That coupled with the fact he twice mentioned unnecessarily that Sherri started running "again" and twice that they live on a sketchy street leads me to think he doubts Sherri's judgment and possible fitness as a mother, our that her decisions and conduct cause fiction for her husband where their kids are concerned. She stopped jogging for a reason: maybe it was concern for her safety in a bad part of town running alone. But she started again which much have caused problems with her husband. He explains his thought process and initially reasons away the fact his kids weren't picked up by theorizing their mother may have gone for a run. Her running is very sensitive for him.

Anonymous said...

He also did not state that he called her at any point. He calls daycare but not his wife who was supposed to pick up his his kids.

deejay said...

I always thought that they set this up as a hoax to get sympathy money and maybe a book or movie deal. Didn't they set up "Fund-me" accounts right away and get like 50,000 dollars? The reason he says 'I live here' might be that he knows she is going to live elsewhere for a while. He says she 'started running again' to give an abduction excuse. And the photo/phone evidence has to be preserved to go with the hoax. As does a worried 911 phone call from him. He would pass a polygraph if the questions were carefully staged- he was at work, he did not abduct her, he does not know where she is, etc. But he would not pass- "Did you have any prior knowledge of this plan." "Are you worried that she is not safe" They are scammy critters and wanted money....

Paul Flanagan said...

He doesn't call her. He goes right to Find My Phone. He doesn't ever say that he tried calling her, in this call or in the network interview he gave a year ago. It's because he knows.

Anonymous said...

John Mc Gowan said...

If memory serves me. The photo of the phone and headphones looked staged to me. The headphones were neatly coiled on top of the phone.
Now if (and for me, that's a big if) she was kidnapped would they neatley fold them.
Why didn't they take them. If she was bundled into a vehicle would they not be strewn on the floor.
Would hair get tangled in the leads if they were snatched of her, if so, then why package them neatly on the floor. Why not take them, or smash them.

Anonymous said...

Her hair seems to play a part in all of this from the very beginning to the time when she returned. Why?

elf said...

I wonder if he had encouraged her to start running again and that's why he felt guilty (saying I'm sorry so many times).
I've noticed that when people call to get a quote on a trailer (my boyfriend builds custom trailers) I answer the phone and say '_____ Trailers' and the caller often says 'yeah, I'm looking for a price on______'. The majority of our customers call from Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas.

Habundia said...

Ive tried to transcribe this call, though there is a part which i can't seem to be able to hear the exact words spoken. Maybe someone else is able to complete it?

911 Call: Michelle Grothause, mother of Blake and Blaine Romes
OP: “Sheriff’s office”
MG: “Yes! I need a depute to come out to my….uh, my house.”
OP: “Okay, what’s the address?”
MG: “………Carrystreet……………(address is being bleeped out)
OP: “What’s the problem?”
MG: “My…we have three boys that are missing, I found a gun in the house and there is blood on, uh in my place.”
OP: “There’s , okay, say that again!?”
MG: “I said we have three children that are missing.”
OP: “Okay.”
MG: “There is….there is blood in my house and there is a gun in my house. My car is missing.”
OP: “Your car is missing?”
MG: “My car is missing.”
OP: “Okay what kind of car is it?”
MG: “It is a 19, uhm, I’am sorry, a 2006 (?not sure what she says here).”
To someone in the back: “No you go? you are not driving.”
OP: “How old are the kids?”
MG: “Uhm, 15, uh, 16, I, I am sorry, I have an issue.”
OP: “I understand.”
MG: “16”
OP: “They’re teenagers?”
MG: “Yes they are teenagers.”
OP: “Okay. What color is your …….?”
MG: “Because I don’t want them all wandering around in here” (?)[talks to someone in the back]
OP: “What’s that?”
MG: “She asked me why.”
OP: “Oh.”
MG: “Why her car is stalled (?still hot), cause I don’t want them all around (?)to go the plan? together. Uhm.”
OP: “What color has your …”
MG: “Silver.”
OP: “Okay. So you just came home and found all this?”
MG: “Yes. My son was supposed to leave to go to Washington, D.C., this morning and he wasn’t answering the phone, so I had to go to leave work.”
OP: “Okay, so does the gun look like it was used?”
MG: “What say?”
OP: “Does the gun look like it was used?”
MG: “Yeah, I , I don’t know.”
OP: “Is it out like somebody…”
MG: “I did not look at it.”
OP: “used it?”
MG: “I have it with me.”
OP: “Okay, is it, is it a handgun?”
MG: “Huh?”
OP: “Is it a handgun?”
MG: “Yes, it’s a black handgun.”
OP: “Okay. Now when you grabbed it, did i, it look like somebody had gotten it out? …..So was it where you normally put it?”
MG: “No, I…I do not have guns in my house.”
OP: “Okay, and what about the one that you have with you?......Was that there?”
MG: “I am sorry, what?”
OP: “The, the gun that you have with you.”
MG: “Yeah.”
OP: “Was that there when you got there?”
MG: “Yes.”
OP: “So it was out like somebody had gotten it out? Or was it where it normally is, or you don’t even know who’s it is?”
MG: “She, she’s telling me it is her ex-boyfriend’s, but it was in her storage unit.”
OP: “Okay. What’s your name?”
MG: “Michelle Grothause.”
OP: “Grothause?”
MG: “Yes.”
OP: “What are the kids names?”
MG: “Blake, Blain and Aron.”
Background noise
MG: “For what?”
OP: “Okay and you’re at the lot now?”
MG: “I am sorry, what?”
OP: “You’re at your trailer now?”
MG: “I am heading there right now, I had to….i have my girlfriends son in-law with me, I had to come back out work to her – because her son , her son is also missing.”
OP: “Okay, is your phone number……..(bliep)?”
MG: ‘Yes.”
OP: “Okay, I will get officers out there as soon as I can, okay?”
MG: “Thank you.”
OP: “Yep”
MG: “Please hurry.”
End of call

The part i don't seem to be able to wordly transcripe seems like she's talking about a car that is standing somewhere and is still 'hot' (as if someone had drove it?)
But at the same time i can be totally wrong on what i think i heard being said. For some reason these words that i cant transcripe come across as leakage, but again i can be totally wrong in this.
So if someone is able to give the words that are spoken, that would be great.

Thanks again Peter for this great lesson of SA!

Alex said...

He twice corrects himself about his location when he found the phone.

Also, first he says,
She sent me a text asking me if I was coming home for lunch.

Later in the call he says,
Papini: Give me one second. … She sent me a text at 10:47 asking me if I was coming home for lunch, from work.

Why the need to say "from work"?


Anonymous said...

This case had someone confess to the murders. What are you thinking stands out as problematic?

Habundia said...

Which case? @ anonymous, #12:00PM

Anonymous at 12:00 said...

The case you posted Habundia. Grothause.

MizzMarple said...


Thank you so much for this Analysis.

Very interesting.

What is puzzling me is why the call was transferred ? I never heard of 9-1-1 transferring calls within their department.

Could it be that he called the sheriff's office first, then he was transferred to 9-1-1?

Thoughts ?

Thank you.

Habundia said...

@anonymous #8:23PM
I only viewed this 911 call vid on youtube and wrote the transcript.....i didn't look up any other information on this particular case so i don't know how it ended and if someone confessed to something.
There were a lot of things that seemed 'problematic' to me.
One of it was the fact the caller had taken the gun with her after she had 'came from work and found all of this' then at some point 'didn't looked' at the gun, but still was able to 'grab it and take it with her' and tell the operator it was a 'black handgun' while she didn't look at it, leave the house to go to pick up her girlfriends son-in-law because she had to come back out work to did she come back from work and went home? Or did she came back from work and went straight to her girlfriend (because her son was also missing) and when did she found out her girlfriends son was missing?......her story just doesn't fit.

@anonymous #4.36AM
The blog is written for people to learn from. Peter had already come to the conclussion of deception before this blog was written. For those who come here to learn statement analysis, this blog was written. I am sure many had already come to the conclussion something isn't right in this case......still it is interesting to see how you can use specific rules to determine deception/sensitive or true/honest stories/statements. Why else would you participate in a blog about SA if you weren't interested in it?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Why does he mentally attach her phone with headphones with she just started running again?

Just an observation on my part: A lot of Type A/ Control-oriented people run or do some other demanding physical activity when they’re stressed or they're unhappy/bored with some aspect of their life or feel it is beyond their control. Also, a number of people embark on fitness regimens or return to fitness regimens when they're either looking to have an affair or actively engaged in one- appearance and attractiveness become a high priority.

I wouldn’t equate pieces of hair tangled in the headphones to the person being grabbed,-partucarly if the headphones are neatly coiled on top of the phone, which is lying neatly face up next to the road waiting to be found. (Storytelling) We all know kidnappers wouldn’t be so careful, but someone wanting to use the phone again after the "event" would. Someone conscious of it's value or contents (family pictures) would be careful not to damage or destroy it.

He also wants Dispatch to know their street is “sketchy”- repeated twice- Storytelling.

Why would he take a picture of the phone on the ground and then pick it up, if there was enough hair tangled in the headphones to make him think she’s been taken? If he could take a picture, then he’s clearly got a phone to call 911 and tell them, and wait there for them to meet him there. If he's aware enough to take a picture for "evidence" before he picks up the phone and aware enough to state to the Dispatcher that he knows she's trying to calm him, he knows exactly what he's doing picking up the phone-he needs an excuse for his prints to be on her phone while she's "missing".

Jay said...

I think that "kidnappers" would grab her as she was, with the headphones on her head, she would be very likely clutching her phone. Eventually, the phone could have been disposed of out of the window into any shrubs - anywhere, not theatrically placed so it could be found easily.

I would like to know "how many hairs were found with the headphones?" 3 would be a good answer. If it was more than 3 he still had amazing eyesight, considering that he was "freaking out". Was the hair visible on the photo? Was he waiting for police to arrive holding the hair?

Jay said...

My question on lie detector test would be "did you place the headphones and phone on the road yourself?" If she would do that on their "sketchy" street, they would be stolen before a right person (him) would find them.

rob said...

I've always thought the family needed an infusion of cash, they weren't living up to expectations, and needed a good reason to start a 'go-fund-me' account.
maybe sherry had been talking it up and hubby knew she had made it happen.
Once an actress, always an actress

Anonymous said...

In California 911 calls from a cell phone go to the CHP.

The CHP then connects you to the correct 911 dept (for non-highway issues).

MsGvious said...

Keith Papini's 911 call to report wife, Sherri Papini, missing:

Mike Dammann said...

The second "sorry" wasn't him apologizing to the operator but quoting his reply to her text about coming home for lunch.
At no point does he indicate trying to call her phone or text her phone when at home and wondering where she is at. Very strange.

D said...

Did she have a history of running away?