This article was not written by a Press Enterprise reporter! As I said in my post above this article appeared in the Riverside Community College newspaper about three weeks before the Press Enterprise picked it up and ran it. Most likely the article was written by an RCC student.

http://viewpointsonline.org/2013/11/05/ … mment-3424

In other words the PE did nothing about writing an in depth article about Cheri Jo or writing an article at all for that matter. It is essentially a syndicated article.

Maybe someone should contact this RCC student. He or She might be more brazen.

Yep.
Or perhaps was walking just round the corner to get something he’d promised from his car (or similar lie) and expected to be walking straight back.

Possible he used a ruse such as that but again, wouldn’t you still take your vehicles keys and lock it?

I would, yes, but then that’s not especially helpful! Cheri Jo didn’t. Why not?

I would, yes, but then that’s not especially helpful! Cheri Jo didn’t. Why not?

I’ve given my opinion on the answer to that once earlier in the thread. She didn’t, In my opinion, because she was abducted. Probably when outside the vehicle after the ‘good Samaritan’ offered to look under the hood of the vehicle.

I can think of a couple of other reasons why the keys were still in the car. Cheri obviously did get in the car to try to start it, she put the books she had checked out from the library on the passenger seat. She most likely had put her purse on the passenger seat, too. It was a large tote bag which was found with her. She could have been flustered that her car didn’t start and simply forgot to remove the keys.

The killer could have gotten behind the wheel to try to start the car at some point in his trying to "help" her and was the last person behind the wheel so it did not occur to her to remove the keys. Or the killer could have removed the keys after the car didn’t start, perhaps because she asked him to, and he put them back after killing her. Too many scenarios to say for sure what happened but I do hope that LE tried to get fingerprints off of the keys.

I can think of a couple of other reasons why the keys were still in the car. Cheri obviously did get in the car to try to start it, she put the books she had checked out from the library on the passenger seat. She most likely had put her purse on the passenger seat, too. It was a large tote bag which was found with her. She could have been flustered that her car didn’t start and simply forgot to remove the keys.

The killer could have gotten behind the wheel to try to start the car at some point in his trying to "help" her and was the last person behind the wheel so it did not occur to her to remove the keys. Or the killer could have removed the keys after the car didn’t start, perhaps because she asked him to, and he put them back after killing her. Too many scenarios to say for sure what happened but I do hope that LE tried to get fingerprints off of the keys.

Yes, I prefer these possibilities. Why start the exercise with the subtlety of disabling the car first, otherwise?
The fact that she fought like hell once in the alley also seems to point to the conclusion that she left the area of the car of her own free will.
Still, opinions differ, as is usual.

I can think of a couple of other reasons why the keys were still in the car. Cheri obviously did get in the car to try to start it, she put the books she had checked out from the library on the passenger seat. She most likely had put her purse on the passenger seat, too. It was a large tote bag which was found with her. She could have been flustered that her car didn’t start and simply forgot to remove the keys.

The killer could have gotten behind the wheel to try to start the car at some point in his trying to "help" her and was the last person behind the wheel so it did not occur to her to remove the keys. Or the killer could have removed the keys after the car didn’t start, perhaps because she asked him to, and he put them back after killing her. Too many scenarios to say for sure what happened but I do hope that LE tried to get fingerprints off of the keys.

Yes, I prefer these possibilities. Why start the exercise with the subtlety of disabling the car first, otherwise?
The fact that she fought like hell once in the alley also seems to point to the conclusion that she left the area of the car of her own free will.
Still, opinions differ, as is usual.

Another possibility….
Perhaps her attacker did the whole car trouble act,and went under her hood pretending to fix it,and at some point told her to come out and have a look. It’s possible I guess that he could have then put a gun to her back,or knife to her throat and forced her to walk down to the alley and when they got to his car, and he attempted to abduct her, she fought like hell at that point. That could explain the keys still being in the ignition. Then again, if she got out just to look under the hood,would she have taken the purse out of her car? Probably not, I think the better possibility is she simply forgot them, or her attacker was the last one trying to start the car.

I think the better possibility is she simply forgot them, or her attacker was the last one trying to start the car.

That wouid seem the most logical conclusion, FWIW, yes.

I could understand Cheri taking her purse out of the car before letting someone she did not know or only slightly knew before letting him in the car to try to start it. So, given that scenario I think that the killer probably left the keys in the car or took them with him and then put them back after the murder. This idea would point to her killer being someone she either did not know or barely knew.

I could understand Cheri taking her purse out of the car before letting someone she did not know or only slightly knew before letting him in the car to try to start it. So, given that scenario I think that the killer probably left the keys in the car or took them with him and then put them back after the murder. This idea would point to her killer being someone she either did not know or barely knew.

Good point

What i don’t get is why Riverside PD never approached The SFPD (or vice versa) after DNA testing became available to see if the Zodiac was responsible for Cheri’s demise? Now I know this too is slightly controversial because of several factors. One being the DNA found on the back sticky side of the stamp was only a partial profile so it could never be used to conclusively prove anyone was a 100% match, but it can be used to rule anyone out that did not contribute the DNA found. So, based on that, why didn’t the DNA from the Bates scene ever get compared to the Partial Zodiac DNA? I would be the first to acknowledge that Zodiac, even though DNA was years in the future, probably wouldn’t have licked the stamp himself (He would have known other bodily fluids such as blood can be typed, so the idea that Z could have possibly foresaw the same technology one day being able to do similar with saliva isn’t too much of a stretch IMO. But Law Enforcement don’t, to the best of my knowledge anyway, ignore testing/comparing evidence between two pieces of evidence based on the Law Enforcement Community having made the assumption "Probably won’t match anyway so lets not waste time testing it."

What i don’t get is why Riverside PD never approached The SFPD (or vice versa) after DNA testing became available to see if the Zodiac was responsible for Cheri’s demise? Now I know this too is slightly controversial because of several factors. One being the DNA found on the back sticky side of the stamp was only a partial profile so it could never be used to conclusively prove anyone was a 100% match, but it can be used to rule anyone out that did not contribute the DNA found. So, based on that, why didn’t the DNA from the Bates scene ever get compared to the Partial Zodiac DNA? I would be the first to acknowledge that Zodiac, even though DNA was years in the future, probably wouldn’t have licked the stamp himself (He would have known other bodily fluids such as blood can be typed, so the idea that Z could have possibly foresaw the same technology one day being able to do similar with saliva isn’t too much of a stretch IMO. But Law Enforcement don’t, to the best of my knowledge anyway, ignore testing/comparing evidence between two pieces of evidence based on the Law Enforcement Community having made the assumption "Probably won’t match anyway so lets not waste time testing it."

Simple. Because RPD don’t think that Zodiac was responsible.

My thought on that was Riverside has probably entered what DNA they were able to get from Cheri into the databases. Assuming that whatever DNA profile was able to be worked up from the Zodiac case has been entered into the databases, and there was a match it should have shown a hit already. So maybe in a sense a comparison has been made though not directly from one LE agency to another. That Zodiac DNA sample is the caveat though, is there really a viable sample????

My thought on that was Riverside has probably entered what DNA they were able to get from Cheri into the databases. Assuming that whatever DNA profile was able to be worked up from the Zodiac case has been entered into the databases, and there was a match it should have shown a hit already. So maybe in a sense a comparison has been made though not directly from one LE agency to another. That Zodiac DNA sample is the caveat though, is there really a viable sample????

Agreed.

And really…what we hear and what they did could be two different things. It simply could have already been compared, but as Seagull stated.."is there really a viable sample"?

I recall that the Riverside DNA is of a different variety to the Zodiac DNA, meaning that they cannot be compared even if RPD wanted to.