It's really nice to see all the activity on this board recently. I know it's an extremely difficult case, but it's important we keep the dialogue going.
I believe I’ve said this before, but it would be nice to hear statements today from the school bus children. MOO IMO
This would be helpful. Also, it seems like a lot of people that follow the case are from Western PA, but aren't directly from the Cabot area. It would be nice to get a few more locals on this discussion board that are more familiar with the area/people. According to newspapers, a Winfield road property was searched in 2015. It would be nice to know what property that was. I'm sure locals would know the answer to this.
Sometimes I think that entirely too much focus has been put on the van. I mean, who is the world would abduct a child while driving a vehicle that would stick out like a sore thumb. There were other kids, at least one other vehicle (parent waiting for kids) and a school bus. Of course they're going to notice a van with a ski scene on the side. I'm just not convinced the van had anything to do with this.
OTOH - it would make a good diversion for whoever actually took Cherrie.
JMHO
I respect your opinion, but I believe the van was involved in some sort of way. It could have been the abductor's vehicle or a diversion (like you stated). The main reason why I believe the van was involved is b/c it was never spotted again. If the van wasn't destroyed or painted over, how could a van that sticks out like a sore thumb just disappear even if it was from outside of the area. If the van was not from the area and the driver was just "passing by", I'm not sure why you need to drive down Cornplanter rd? It's extremely doubtful that the van was just driving down Cornplanter Rd behind the bus coincidentally IMO. It's hard to explain, but having driven down Cornplanter several times, it's just not a road that you would just travel down without a specific purpose in my estimation. If the van was behind the bus like witnesses have mentioned, the driver of the van would have likely been the primary witness when Cherrie was abducted. Or at the very least, the driver would have seen Cherrie walk by. If the van wasn't involved, then it's likely that the owner would have come forward when everyone in the area was looking for it days after the abduction. Or someone who knew the owner of an extremely descriptive van would have come forward. Nothing is impossible but I believe it is improbable that the van wasn't involved in some sort of way.
Why would someone abduct a child with a vehicle that sticks out like a sore thumb? The fact that this van hasn't been found (a van that sticks out like a sore thumb) since, makes it more likely that it was involved IMO. The sliding door would be easier to get a person through than the normal side door of a car. Also, this will sound sick, but this van likely had a bed or a couch of some sort in the back. If you were a child predator, then this would make sense I suppose. In my opinion, the van was hidden, painted over, or destoyed by the perpetrator(s).
It also doesn't sound like anyone had a good look at the blue car that was parked near the van. Not many details about the blue car were ever released. The only thing that the police mentioned is that it was parked in a driveway near the bus stop during the time of abduction. This car could have been a lookout of some sort or the primary abduction vehicle.
Also, from what I have heard in the newspaper, bloodhounds were never able to get a scent of Cherrie other than the end of her driveway. She almost had to be taken in a vehicle. So that leaves the blue car/van unless there was another vehicle that no one saw.
