Norse:
Bingo! You’ve been reading my mind (not much there but ABCs) or vice versa. In addition to what you’ve argued, there’s the matter of the knife. Cheri was stabbed and almost decapitated with a 4" blade. Seems to me if her killer had planned to kill her he would have wielded a serious blade. Further, that he carved away with nothing more than a pocket knife until she was nearly decapitated is gruesome evidence that he was/is a homicidal maniac.

What I’m thinking is – still – that whoever killed her, wasn’t determined to do so from the onset. He tampered with the car to gain an excuse to talk to her. The talk didn’t go as he wished – and tragedy ensued. He was, to be blunt, a nutcase who was obsessed with her – and who killed her because she didn’t respond in accordance with the fantasies in his head.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think that’s how it played out. Doesn’t excuse him from being a serial killer though. Every crime he committed could have been acts of passion with quite a bit of cooling off in between.

Soze

Or, how about someone who knew Cheri VERY well. Someone of which no one in a million years would have ever suspected. Not a brush off at all…

That would imply a lie on the part of the letter writer/killer. If you believe he lied about one thing then you myst consider the potential of him lying about other things. I dont think thats the case. Especially not the car as Norse points out.

What ideas do you have regarding someone no one would think of? The best I can come up with would be a family member or priest. I think everyone else would be considered before the other.

Soze

Or, how about someone who knew Cheri VERY well. Someone of which no one in a million years would have ever suspected. Not a brush off at all…

That would imply a lie on the part of the letter writer/killer. If you believe he lied about one thing then you myst consider the potential of him lying about other things. I dont think thats the case. Especially not the car as Norse points out.

What ideas do you have regarding someone no one would think of? The best I can come up with would be a family member or priest. I think everyone else would be considered before the other.

Soze

Family was some of the first people they looked at- Dad & brother.

I just think there could be a lot of people closer to Cheri that would just never be considered, especially someone who never had a relationship with her. Brother (cousin, Dad, etc.) of a close friend, etc. Someone at her church n’such.

I don’t put anyone who murdered her above lying and think the confession letter contained lies—she obviously put up a struggle. I think the brush-offs is probably bs too.

Just to clarify my car point:

The killer did tamper with her car. Disregarding the letter for now, does it make sense for someone who knew her (very) well to employ this kind of ruse?

The idea must have been to gain an excuse to get CJB to himself – that goes for both basic possibilities: a) he intended to kill her, b) he intended to have something out with her, or declare his feelings for her, or whatever it may have been.

My initial thought is that someone who knew her (very) well would not need to engineer such an excuse.

I don’t believe that Cheri was killed by a serial murderer OTHER than Zodiac.

If you take Zodiac off the table, and only look at this crime, I don’t think we can conclude definitely that there is a serial killer at work here.

The savageness and the sloppiness of the crime both indicate that it was personal and probably the first murder committed by that individual. And there was no evidence to connect it to any other known crimes at the time.

I have a hard time believing that anyone would be demented enough to write those letters who was not the killer, but it’s possible. Those letters are really the only thing that indicate an escalation on the part of the killer.

The details in the letter don’t necessarily require an insiders knowledge. The only questionable statement is the phone call to police, which hasn’t been confirmed and may be held back for security.

About the car: I think he did that in order to get her to go with him to an area where he could commit either a sexual assault or just the murder. In other words even if he knew her fairly well he still needed an excuse to get her to go with him, and a broken down car works well for that.

About the car: I think he did that in order to get her to go with him to an area where he could commit either a sexual assault or just the murder. In other words even if he knew her fairly well he still needed an excuse to get her to go with him, and a broken down car works well for that.

Hard to argue against that.

Perhaps I’m overthinking this. If you look at it in isolation, it can be seen as a fairly straightforward chain of events:

Premise: He’s a predator who knows her to some extent (we keep assuming this, and with good reason, since it is considerably less likely that she would simply accept the offer of a ride from a complete stranger – this is based on what we know about her character, it’s not a random assumption).

1. He disables the car.
2. He leads her away (she’s under the impression he’s going to drive her home).
3. He attempts to rape her, she fights him, he becomes enraged – and there it is.

Nothing too wrong with that chain, I think.

The pathology behind it all – well, that’s something else. Multiple interpretations are clearly possible there.

You mention the call to the police as the one detail known only to the killer and the cops. I now vaguely recall what I referred to above: The car having been tampered with was reported in the papers – but the details, as described by the letter writer, were not identical to the ones reported (the latter were less specific). Can someone confirm this?

Might also consider that RPD seemingly do not believe (or are at least not convinced) that the killer wrote the letter. If this is the case, one might surmise that the phone call mentioned either did not take place – or was not properly registered (at any rate the cops do not consider this detail proof that the letter is genuine).

ICrucial question: How sure are we – actually – that the pertinent details could not have been known to anyone but the killer and the cops? It’s been a long time since I researched this particular aspect, but I do remember there being some doubt voiced about this.

Looking over the memos and such, they state that 1) the letter contains information not publicly available, and 2) RPD is convinced it is from their suspect.

That said, I did realize there are a couple of additional possibilities to the ones stated in my original post.

1) RPD lost track of what was and was not publicly available.
2) The information was not publicly available but the letter writer heard that information through the rumor mill.

Just a couple of other thoughts here …. one thing that strikes me about the murder is its resemblance to a Jack the Ripper murder. Leading a woman to an alley, stabbing her, and then nearly decapitating her. Almost like an homage.

I don’t believe that Cheri was killed by a serial murderer OTHER than Zodiac.

If you take Zodiac off the table, and only look at this crime, I don’t think we can conclude definitely that there is a serial killer at work here.

The savageness and the sloppiness of the crime both indicate that it was personal and probably the first murder committed by that individual. And there was no evidence to connect it to any other known crimes at the time.

I have a hard time believing that anyone would be demented enough to write those letters who was not the killer, but it’s possible. Those letters are really the only thing that indicate an escalation on the part of the killer.

The details in the letter don’t necessarily require an insiders knowledge. The only questionable statement is the phone call to police, which hasn’t been confirmed and may be held back for security.

About the car: I think he did that in order to get her to go with him to an area where he could commit either a sexual assault or just the murder. In other words even if he knew her fairly well he still needed an excuse to get her to go with him, and a broken down car works well for that.

Interesting points here.

I think it might be safe to say too that this person hasn’t committed further crimes–at least crimes where DNA might have been a factor.

Interesting points here.

I think it might be safe to say too that this person hasn’t committed further crimes–at least crimes where DNA might have been a factor.

Incorrect

Interesting points here.

I think it might be safe to say too that this person hasn’t committed further crimes–at least crimes where DNA might have been a factor.

Incorrect

–I know you were quoting me–

Feel free to state why you feel this way.

Just to clarify my statement, I think if this person left further DNA somewhere, they could have possibly matched it–not necessarily finding out who he was. That is NOT to say he hasn’t committed other crimes, just not ones where he left his DNA behind.

Seems the car tampering info was released to the press.

Nothing in it, then, which positively rules out an imposter. Only the phone detail could possibly do that – but we have no confirmation that the killer actually made such a call.

I’m so convinced that the information being in the papers has to be detrimental to the writer and the attacker being the same individual. I think, whoever he was, he was probably going to wait before writing, if at all. He has no control over what was printed and when so either he doesn’t write at all or he writes and re-iterates some of the details. That’s ultimately what he did. Maybe it worked out better for him. For all we know he may not have even had a name or an address to send it. The newspapers, it could be suggested, gifted him that.

Did any of the papers ever mention that she was strangled? I can’t remember. I have a vague notion it was discussed and autopsy reports were possibly consulted to verify. Just if anyone knows off hand.

Did any of the papers ever mention that she was strangled? I can’t remember. I have a vague notion it was discussed and autopsy reports were possibly consulted to verify. Just if anyone knows off hand.

From what I read in the autopsy reports, there was no sign of strangulation. If I am wrong, someone please correct me.