Law enforcement resources continued to be deployed. The FBI remained involved. The investigation was, according to subsequent reporting, the most resource-intensive kidnapping investigation in the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office’s history. Sheriff Tom Bosenko and later Sheriff Michael Johnson both made public statements about the investigation, maintaining the framing of an active search for the alleged captors while privately navigating the growing list of investigative findings that didn’t fit Papini’s account.
October 2017 brought a specific and significant development: the announcement that male DNA recovered from Papini’s clothing did not match her husband Keith, and that a search of the CODIS national database had returned no match for the profile. The male DNA was identified as an unknown individual. An unknown man’s DNA on her clothing was not consistent with her account of being held by two women. The announcement was made publicly. It did not resolve the case. It added a layer of confusion that would not be cleared until the genetic genealogy work in 2020 identified Reyes.
—
## A Second DNA Finding: What Was On Her Body
The reporting on the DNA evidence in the Papini case distinguished between two separate biological findings, and the distinction is worth establishing precisely.
Male DNA was identified on Papini’s clothing — this was the profile that did not match Keith Papini and that produced no CODIS result in 2017. That DNA, the reporting indicated, was eventually matched to James Reyes through genetic genealogy in 2020.
There was also a reported finding related to DNA collected from Papini’s body — specifically, characterizations of DNA identified in connection with the forensic examination of her physical injuries. According to reporting on the case, DNA collected from her person produced a female profile. Some coverage characterized this as DNA collected from wounds on her body being consistent with a female contributor.