Found Deceased WA - Cheryl DeBoer, 54, Mountlake Terrace, 8 February 2016 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can confirm this to be accurate. A trip is one way, so riding with the group to/from would be 2 trips.

And just so there is no disection of his statement, she was a carpool never not an official vanpool.

Sorry Seatowner, but could you please re-phrase the bolded bit? I think there's a word or two missing or maybe just a weird double-negative... (or maybe I'm just tired ;) )
Are you saying she was in a carpool? but it wasn't an official vanpool?
 
I find it noteworthy that they call it "blood stains" , not simply "blood". "Blood stains" implies a rather small amount to me, not an amount that would lead them to think she was deceased because of this blood loss. What do you all think?

Yeah, I agree, a huge thing I'm trying to figure out is the nature of the blood evidence they found in the car. I assume they found tiny amounts (and it took some looking around, not obvious on sight) that were consistent with the small cuts she has. I feel like if it was just blood everywhere like in the movies, she'd have to have been stabbed or something, and her COD would have been really obvious on sight (not that they would share that just yet if it was).

Almost OT but driving my car this morning I noticed specks of what looks like old dried blood on the interior. Who even knows where it came from. I'm pregnant and have been getting my blood taken a lot for tests and soforth, and I'm a bleeder. Probably that. Just saying its not super crazy if there's a little blood in anyone's car.

I just don't know what the cuts could have to do with it. You can't kill yourself by pricking your fingers (I think?). And correct me if I'm wrong, but if she had injected herself with something, the fingertips would not be the spot to do it, right?

As for "small self inflicted cuts" I strongly think they mean accidental ones like we all get sometimes. If not that, maybe defensive ones.

So basically my opinion on what happened is... IDK... But I don't think the little cuts or the blood in the car have much to do with her death. I don't see how or why she would walk so far to die in a ditch after inflicting fatal wounds on herself. And I don't think a potential killer struck the fatal blow at the car either. IMO the body probably has visible signs of something (strangulation, stabbing, bullets, something) and either LE is playing it close to the vest, or for some reason still can't determine COD, maybe because she has sighs of multiple of the aforementioned.

JMO
 
so if someones slashing a knife around at her, that means she could have accidentally cut herself out of self defense? of course if someones trying to cut her, they don't intend to cut her fingers but something else. they didn't purposefully do it.

no, because they have specifically said "self inflicted". Self defense is self defense and they'd be described as such. There's still someone else involved, the person holding what CD has cut herself on.

What it sounds like to me is they can tell - probably from the angle and depth - that they were inflicted by something she was holding.
 
so if someones slashing a knife around at her, that means she could have accidentally cut herself out of self defense? of course if someones trying to cut her, they don't intend to cut her fingers but something else. they didn't purposefully do it.

:welcome:
 
I am still rather confused about the whole cut thing
Was there something in the car she could have cut herself with or did she do it at home?
Were the cuts brand new or healing?
Do they believe that is the source of the blood in the car?
Anyone know how he can determine that cuts were self inflicted?

Sorry, so many questions

If the coroner was to do an autopsy on me tomorrow, he would find all kinds of cuts and scrapes on my hands, arms and legs. The cuts and scrapes were not done to me by my old lady, or my dog, or my cat, or my mother-in-law, or a cop, or an alien.

Nope.

Those cuts and scrapes were self-inflicted by me during the course of normal daily activities because I'm not a very careful person and I get hurt a lot. For instance, I think it is both impossible and absurd to try and get on a riding lawnmower without having some cold beer on hand, and a lot of it. After about the 9th or 10th beer..........well.........I tend to get hurt a lot, but in my defense, the lawn does get mowed very quickly.

Another thing that hasn't really been brought up is that Cheryl's husband may have told the cops that she somehow injured her fingers and that information was simply passed on to the M.E.. I think he was simply discounting those particular wounds as having anything to do with her final demise.
 
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20...-self-inflicted-cuts-found-on-woman's-fingers


I just came across this sentence while I was scanning for additional news on this case. I don't know if this article was revised recently or if this was in there all along, but either way, it sort of explains what the M.E. was referring to about the cuts on her fingers. I suspected maybe that's what he was alluding to........self inflicted through the course of typical daily activities.

The term "self-inflicted" was blown way out of context, so it appears.

So why mention it? It seemingly has nothing to do with Cheryl's death, so it is very insignificant.

LE wanted the ME to say something as people were expecting it, and this is all he could say? It stirred up a hornets nest, is that what LE wanted?

I think it is only one of two things. LE has their eye on someone or they have absolutely no idea. The way they have been so closed mouthed yet give the impression they are on top of this is where I get my opinion.
 
I wonder if she had prior incidences of her and someone else? What do Washington State Court records say? Maybe her husband, friends, coworkers, etc know of a riff she may have?

How long after being reported missing was her car found? If she is known to park in that area, how come it wasn't found sooner?

Also, her family not stating anything about the case from the beginning and staying away from the public eye (so as to avoid being questioned) is probably because police knew it was suspicious and expected a possible bad ending. When my coworker died, I was instructed not to talk about her death until the investigation was complete...I feel it may be the same with missing persons cases. Not to mention, they may be expecting the worse or being instructed by an attorney to keep quiet.

I am sure police thought her badge going missing text and then her going missing was too much of a coincidence, atleast I do. I highly doubt something happened to her and that person used her phone (why would the person say they would probably ride home with them? I suppose if adrenaline were rushing they could be just trying to keep that person away, but I don't think they could hurt her and then that would be their main priority during that time frame). Also, this lady strikes me as the type to call about something like that, especially if it was messing up plans for the day in the morning for work.

I am not sure what is more plausible. I guess I am leaning more towards the text being from her, but it seems way too convenient for the entire day. But then again, (not sure if this is correct) the family keeps saying she did not intend on taking the bus, and the news keeps saying she sent a text saying that..so maybe either the news is wrong, or the family is right that SHE never sent that, but someone else did. Also, if a loved one goes missing, police officers can triangulate where you are to the exact house. I have had officers offer to do this, and when I called 911 once and hung up, officers showed up at my door...however, if phone battery is out, or phone is off, they may not be able to do this. It's really odd to me that IF she did indeed send that text, she realized she left her badge at home and that gave her an excuse to not see the friend that was supposed to pick her up. Then in the next like 10 minutes or whatever, something happened to her. However, I do believe that is called a crime of opportunity, but it is odd her phone was shut off *right* after. Also, I believe I saw on the missing fb page or in a press release news thing she takes the bus home from work (then drives home) and carpools with a friend there? And did the police say whether her phone was shut off *right* after, or at 7:30?

Also, stranger violence is pretty rare compared to a certain other type of violence, like violence committed by someone you know..js

The press conference said they don't believe the public's safety is at risk...which leads me to believe it was someone close to her. Then, they changed their tune, which is confusing. Maybe it's a liability thing, as the person who killed her could be going off or someone could get jumped by a stranger then sue the police for not warning them?

Also, the fact that police didn't originally state to the public where she was last seen, and when....if someone is seen in public, usually they put that out in the missing persons reports, ask neighbors to review videos, and ask anyone to tip them...so leads me to believe they felt she went missing somewhere that wasn't in public at first..but then they said they smelled her scent outside of her car....so maybe they felt she was last seen alive not at the center, but her body was there? They are just now literally just asking if people saw something suspicious, not if they saw her. Maybe they need to build their case more up against the person that did this?

Also, as for them saying there was a book found in the car, then he couldn't comment. Maybe he got reprimanded for divulging what could be seen as evidence, or maybe they were not done processing the car and found more...

I agree I find it odd family doesn't believe she didn't say or mean she would be taking the bus..how do they know? Does that mean other times she has missed her carpool she decided to drive? Thank you for poster who posted all the varying media articles, it's interesting to see how wildly they are different.

Terrace Creek Park is right next to her house, contains Lyons Creek...and she was found in Lyon's Creek about a mile south on Cedar Way. I originally believed this is where her body was either deposited, or the murder occurred, until I saw from media video and poster comments that the Creek goes east to west, not west to east. Of course, water can change directions, but the water at the culvert goes east to west....does anyone know which part of the culvert she was found in, on the east or west side? Plus, betting on the water changing directions is kind of a stretch.

I think someone would think water would be a better option because they believe it would aid in decomposition and getting rid of DNA quicker and may be less likely to see and find a body than out in the open somewhere, as there are a lot of hikers around. I do not believe she was hurt at or near her home, because then how did her car get there? Someone drove it, then how did they get home, taxi? That's a bit too suspicious for someone to do. I suppose they could have taken the bus, and how convenient is it that it is right there. Bus depots in the area tend to be dangerous, too.

What murderers do you know of who have done that, though? Maybe she got in someone else's car willingly, or unwillingly, and she was brought to the park where it happened, or elsewhere. I suppose she could have been hurt in her car during an argument, and think the blood in the car shows this.

I believe most cases where women go missing are done by a lover of some kind, or someone they knew. (not saying it's the husband.) However, the fact that police are protecting certain parts of the investigation like when she was last seen by someone, etc. is intriguing....

The road where she was found isn't as busy as a four lane main road with multiple lights, but during rush hour there are people who go through often. Many people take this road as part of their commute. I saw an example video of when there were cones telling people where to go. There was maybe a car going through every minute or two. Just so people know. It did appear the culvert area had a drive off area where a car could be hidden from site...which makes me think it wasn't random and was planned.

For people not thinking robbery because it was in a busy area or during somewhat daylight, remember criminals are usually illogical and desperate..I mean no logical person wants to go rob someone because they have a conscience, know of the consequences, etc. But people who are really needing a drug fix are often willing to commit crime to get their fix, and don't often think details through.
Cheryl is first of all a woman, which makes her more of a target. She is an older woman at that, and looks nice, looks like she wouldnt give up a fight. So if someone did target her instead of choosing her at random, that is likely why. I bet she put up a struggle.


Someone mentioned a cabin, what about a cabin?
Also for everyone mentioning self inflicted, i really think that could mean perhaps the abductor or whoever did not mean to cut her fingers, and she cut herself by trying to defend herself.
I do believe she was hurt in her car, but not sure where her car was when this happened. I do believe the text was too convenient....I also hope they dont slam this case closed as a suicide. Cops around here tend to do that, they have done that type of thing with a couple friends of mine. My hometown is Everett, wa..

to another poster, i think i remember the cuts being on two fingers, not on her hands..so not sure how her fingernails digging into her fingers could be possible unless shes holding hands with herself.

as far as determining cause of death, murder and suicide are not always obvious. they want to know what she died from; whether it be drugs, strangulation, drowning, smothering, etc. i really doubt this was suicide, not really common for a woman to take their life at a culvert on the side of a road.
 
So why mention it? It seemingly has nothing to do with Cheryl's death, so it is very insignificant.

LE wanted the ME to say something as people were expecting it, and this is all he could say? It stirred up a hornets nest, is that what LE wanted?

I think it is only one of two things. LE has their eye on someone or they have absolutely no idea. The way they have been so closed mouthed yet give the impression they are on top of this is where I get my opinion.

I think it was mentioned to explain the blood found in the car. Likely, as Steelman suggested, the husband provided the ME with information about the cuts on Cheryl's fingers.
 
I still am having trouble with cause of death not being obvious in an attack. Even if strangulation was cause of death, there should be evidence, as she was found within a week. Jmo
 
So why mention it? It seemingly has nothing to do with Cheryl's death, so it is very insignificant.

LE wanted the ME to say something as people were expecting it, and this is all he could say? It stirred up a hornets nest, is that what LE wanted?

I think it is only one of two things. LE has their eye on someone or they have absolutely no idea. The way they have been so closed mouthed yet give the impression they are on top of this is where I get my opinion.

I think it's safe to say that there isn't any glaring evidence that is pointing at one person or another. That means everything is going to have to be setup and established through forensics and laboratory tests. We all know that lawyers love that kind of thing, because it enables them to challenge the validity of just about everything that was tested and claim it was either contaminated or planted.

This case may boil down to that one single fingerprint, a carpet fiber, or a human hair......it may be that tedious. If they had a solid idea who was behind this, that person at the very least would be sitting behind some hot lights answering some questions, and at the very most would be wearing some handcuffs.

They don't know who did it................yet.

Will they ever............??????
 
one of my coworkers and friends died from an evident drug overdose, needle still in her arm. they didnt classify it as suicide from the get go. there was an investigation due to neighbors hearing a male arguing with her the night of. once they investigated that part of it, they closed it. then they had to wait for toxicology results before determining cause of death. i mean, someone could have put a needle in her arm to make it appear she died of a drug overdose, or hit her over the head or something then administered drugs. LE is likely waiting for toxicology results before saying for sure what she died of, although they will say what they are investigating. they may trickle bits of info out to get people to talk and come forward to help them have more leads to figuring things out...which is exactly what is occurring as i write this. even if it appears to be likely suicide of homicide, they have to have all parts of evidence and things found processed before they determine COD.
 
Sorry Seatowner, but could you please re-phrase the bolded bit? I think there's a word or two missing or maybe just a weird double-negative... (or maybe I'm just tired ;) )
Are you saying she was in a carpool? but it wasn't an official vanpool?

Yes sorry. My phone has grammar and autocorrect issues sometimes.

She was in a carpool but not a vanpool. When I think of Vanpool I think an official vanpool from one of the transit companies. But this was not a 5-10 person "van" pool. Just an unofficial carpool. As Vanpools do not "wait" for riders, they keep a schedule.


But since the posted I quoted had used interchangeably, I wanted to clarify. So it didn't take a life of its own, lol.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
they didnt classify it as suicide or drug overdose* sorry, been up since 4am. even after speaking to her family and coworkers, finding rehab paperwork, they still didnt classify it as overdose until the tox results came back. however, if evidence is processed that places other people at the scene and it not likely to be suicide, they will probably wait until they get enough evidence to arrest that person, or pressure them for a confession before even the results come back. results can take like 6-10 weeks or something long like that, and i have seen people get arrested before that time period is up.
 
Cheryl was a systems analyst but IMO she had a chemistry background. Could be she died from some chemical substance administered through the cuts.
 
Cheryl was a chemist. Could be she died from some chemical substance administered through the cuts.

Cheryl worked as a systems analyst at the Center for HIV/AIDS Research and Prevention at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle
 
Cheryl worked as a systems analyst at the Center for HIV/AIDS Research and Prevention at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle
IMO she had a chemistry background.
 
So why mention it? It seemingly has nothing to do with Cheryl's death, so it is very insignificant.

LE wanted the ME to say something as people were expecting it, and this is all he could say? It stirred up a hornets nest, is that what LE wanted?

I think it is only one of two things. LE has their eye on someone or they have absolutely no idea. The way they have been so closed mouthed yet give the impression they are on top of this is where I get my opinion.


bbm - Maybe they did for whatever reason? Playing a trick card?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
3,381
Total visitors
3,553

Forum statistics

Threads
604,141
Messages
18,168,242
Members
232,019
Latest member
Kamarie61
Back
Top