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.
The order:
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.
Thank you, truly, immensely, sincerely and with my entire heart.
Police got "thanks" but the "humans" get the full "thank you" with:
a. truly
b. immensely
c. sincerely
d. his heart
e. his entire heart
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
"immediate gratification."
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 details."
"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?
1. Rumors
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 help.
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.
2. Assumptions
This is akin to rumors where one rumor may gain strength.
3. Lies
What lies is he talking about? If someone has lied about his wife, this is a perfect time to address it.
4. Hate
"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 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.
<span style='font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;