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

[nosy neighbor]

I cannot help but to wonder if the husband was involved. (or someone who knew her very well) I hate to say this because if I am wrong it is a cruel thing to say. And maybe LE is making the husband think he is not a person of interest. It is hard for me to believe that she did not die before Monday morning. And as far as we know her husband was the last person to see her. I want to know who was the last person to see her besides her husband? Also, in the article when it was announced her husband was no longer a person of interest, they didn't specifically say that they saw Cheryl in the surveillance video, they only said that the husband was in the video at 6:50 AM and Cheryl left after that time and the husband was at work in Mukilteo at 7:15 AM. The timeline of her death is odd, as well as the fact that she was found so close to her home. It was obviously premeditated because the body was hidden by someone that knew the area very well. And the street her body hidden under in the culvert is a busy street. The text message indicates that the person knew her schedule and to text her coworkers ( which I don't believe she sent that message) I wish LE would say the time of death. Also it is scary living in the community with this crime unsolved. I almost had to park my car near where Cheryl parked her car because I got to work late. Another thing to note, there is no reason why Cheryl would have not parked at the Park & Ride, there is plenty of parking in the garage at the time she supposedly left. I believe her car was parked a block away up a hill because there was no surveillance video by the library and Veterans Park.

 

[kammiemc]

I agree with you. The Hutch is great organization for sure but the idea that they are in a fierce competition with evil big pharma over a cure for cancer is complete myth. Even more preposterous is the idea that this "competition" could be the reason for CDs death. The truth is that the Hutch works in close collaboration with many biopharmaceutical companies to develop cutting edge treatments for cancer patients. That is how it works. If you don't believe me see the links below or just google Fred Hutch clinical trials and you find that most of their trials involve treating patients with drugs developed by big Pharma.

I work for an "evil" for-profit biotechnology company located just down the street from the Hutch. The founder of our company is also a Hutch employed scientist. There is no conspiracy here on the part of big Pharma to intimidate the "competition" by killing one of its mid-level employees.

https://www.fredhutch.org/en/diseases/technology-transfer/success-stories.html

https://globenewswire.com/news-rele...rch-Center-Enter-Collaboration-Agreement.html

QUOTE=kammiemc;12370023]I think that is always possible, but I doubt it. Fred Hutch is an amazing not-for-profit organization that is responsible for breakthroughs that have saved lives all over the globe. Even if big pharma got up in arms over a breakthrough that would render their expensive treatment moot, I doubt they would hire a hit on a systems analyst. I doubt she personally would hold info that no one else could access and in the hierarchy of scientists and decision makers there, I doubt she held significant influence. She is not the one who is meeting with politicians, etc. That's more the President. Fred Hutch is one my company's clients. Can't say enough good stuff about that place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[/QUOTE]

I think you might have misinterpreted my post. I believe the same thing you believe. I was maybe just not as vehement in arguing it. I do not think (I doubt) that it had anything to do with competition or anything else tied to Fred Hutch. And I certainly was not implying that "for profit" companies are evil. Sorry for the confusion

Btw, The only reason I addressed the pharma idea is because it was the only theory I could surmise that someone might be guessing about in terms of her company having any relevancy to her death. (Not because I, personally, think it is a viable theory.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PLT]

I would hope not as I cannot think of what punishment would be served . Seems like the crime would be the punishment .

Just checking in to see if another 10 pages meant there was a recent update but sadly no.

ETA: this was regarding the conversation about whether suicide was a crime. I forgot to quote the poster.

 

[nosy neighbor]

It would have been difficult to commit the crime within the timeline mentioned and hide the body during broad daylight. LE and the surveillance videos at the Park & Ride show that she was never there. So at the very least we know when she discovered her badge missing (If that was what happened) she discovered that before leaving for the park & ride. Which would mean she was killed between driving home or at her house. The area that her car was found is not isolated. And her car was seen in surveillance in the area one time at 7:05 AM. So how the person would kill her and move her body to 244th culvert in broad daylight seems very challenging- that person would have had a plan as to where to dispose of the body. Which was extremely close to her house. This definitely is not a suicide and I think it is unlikely to be a crime of opportunity just because there had to be premeditation going on with the timing, getting the body in the culvert, etc. I think it was someone she knows. I also have no idea what motive one would have- she seems like such a sweet woman.

 

[Wolf Dreamer]

I cannot help but to wonder if the husband was involved.

LE have specifically stated that husband is not a POI in this case and unless/until that changes, he can't be discussed in that way here I'm afraid.

 

[nosy neighbor]

I don't think we know how her body was transported. We also don't know the time of death which would provide a lot of information. No one is really talking, the community, LE, Fred Hutch employees, neighbors that knew the family, which feels strange. But moving a body requires a lot of physical endurance and it would have been unlikely to have happened in broad daylight. I think she was probably killed before Monday.

 

[DatelineFan]

@nosyneighbor I agree. It just has to be someone close to her. This is why I've been asking about the surveillance system. I'm very curious about the wording used. It leaves a lot of room for different interpretations.

 

[otto]

I don't think we know how her body was transported. We also don't know the time of death which would provide a lot of information. No one is really talking, the community, LE, Fred Hutch employees, neighbors that knew the family, which feels strange. But moving a body requires a lot of physical endurance and it would have been unlikely to have happened in broad daylight. I think she was probably killed before Monday.

Her husband reported that he last saw his wife before going to work at roughly 6:50AM, so she was alive and well at that time. Surveillance video shows Cheryl leaving her house approximately 10 minutes after her husband left the house. The husband has been ruled out, and is not a person of interest.

How should Cheryl be alive at 6:50AM Monday morning, and not be alive on Monday?

 

[Sea gull]

Sorry, I think I need to work on my written communication skills so that I don't sound like I am attacking people! I think you and I are in total agreement with what we say in our posts and I can see why you would raise the pharma issue, because some people might be considering that as a motive for sure.

 

[DatelineFan]

Yes, a woman! This is another theory I've explored. I think it's more likely than suicide in a culvert.

 

[kammiemc]

@nosyneighbor I agree. It just has to be someone close to her. This is why I've been asking about the surveillance system. I'm very curious about the wording used. It leaves a lot of room for different interpretations.

I have the same questions, Dateline! I am not totally satisfied that SHE was seen on video based on the ambiguous wording.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kammiemc]

Sorry, I think I need to work on my written communication skills so that I don't sound like I am attacking people! I think you and I are in total agreement with what we say in our posts and I can see why you would raise the pharma issue, because some people might be considering that as a motive for sure.

No worries! I didn't want you to think I was bashing pharma. I love my drugs!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kammiemc]

I don't think we know how her body was transported. We also don't know the time of death which would provide a lot of information. No one is really talking, the community, LE, Fred Hutch employees, neighbors that knew the family, which feels strange. But moving a body requires a lot of physical endurance and it would have been unlikely to have happened in broad daylight. I think she was probably killed before Monday.

I know. Why wouldn't they give her time of death? What would be sensitive about that? I think we would all pretty much guess it was sometime between Mon AM and the time her body was found. Maybe they can't tell for sure? Or don't want to alarm people if she was kept alive for days?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DatelineFan]

I have the same questions, Dateline! I am not totally satisfied that SHE was seen on video based on the ambiguous wording.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EXACTLY! We're on the same freaking page!!

 

[Elainera]

I don't think we know how her body was transported. We also don't know the time of death which would provide a lot of information. No one is really talking, the community, LE, Fred Hutch employees, neighbors that knew the family, which feels strange. But moving a body requires a lot of physical endurance and it would have been unlikely to have happened in broad daylight. I think she was probably killed before Monday.

Or killed Monday and moved to the culvert later.

 

[otto]

I have the same questions, Dateline! I am not totally satisfied that SHE was seen on video based on the ambiguous wording.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's consider what we know to be true:

• Cheryl was last seen by her husband at home at 6:50AM on Monday
• Cheryl's husband has been ruled out

That places Cheryl alive and well on Monday morning at home.

Shortly after leaving home, she texted a friend to say that she had forgotten her badge and would return home to retrieve it. The friend offered to wait. The friend waited until 7:30AM, but was unable to contact Cheryl after the brief text messages. The badge was found at Cheryl's home.

This suggests that something happened to Cheryl after she left her home, and after she sent the text message. How is it possible that someone, other than Cheryl, sent a text message to the carpool friends about leaving the badge at home? Obviously Cheryl wouldn't share that with someone who was attacking her. I'm wondering under what circumstances someone with ill intentions would know to send that text message.

 

[QueenBea13]

EXACTLY! We're on the same freaking page!!

Me three!!!! Surveillance to me means video but I have talked with a friend that has a newer security/alarm system than what we have, same company but friend just recently moved into a new house & equipment was upgraded. But she told me the only camera she has is in her doorbell, so when someone rings it or even just knocks she can look & see who it is, but in order for it to record the alarm has to be set, as in she enters her code to leave the house or go to bed at night. I forgot to ask how long the recording can be viewed or saved.
So my thought is for either DeBoer to have been recorded on surveillance or video, I'd think the alarm would've had to have been set, 1st when hubby left the house & then again when Cheryl left. But then I find myself wondering why the 1st to leave would've activated the alarm if the other was still in the house about to leave as well, why not just set the alarm once when the last to leave left??? I'm so confused by this. Anyone have an alarm/security/surveillance system that does this & that can explain it to me as I am totally not up to par in knowing or understanding how it works. Ours is a simple put your code in & leave, if an intruder comes or something trips the alarm, alarm goes off, alarm company contacts my husband or I & asks if we're ok or do they need to dispatch LE. Simple. Lol


The thoughts & opinions stated above are that, MY random thoughts & opinions.

 

[MU42M]

Let's consider what we know to be true:

• Cheryl was last seen by her husband at home at 6:50AM on Monday
• Cheryl's husband has been ruled out

That places Cheryl alive and well on Monday morning at home.

Shortly after leaving home, she texted a friend to say that she had forgotten her badge and would return home to retrieve it. The friend offered to wait. The friend waited until 7:30AM, but was unable to contact Cheryl after the brief text messages. The badge was found at Cheryl's home.

This suggests that something happened to Cheryl after she left her home, and after she sent the text message. How is it possible that someone, other than Cheryl, sent a text message to the carpool friends about leaving the badge at home? Obviously Cheryl wouldn't share that with someone who was attacking her. I'm wondering under what circumstances someone with ill intentions would know to send that text message.

This is why I have a hard time seeing how this was someone she knew. How would that person predict CD would leave her badge at home that day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

This is why I have a hard time seeing how this was someone she knew. How would that person predict CD would leave her badge at home that day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's exactly where I'm having problems understanding scenarios where Cheryl was not alive on Monday morning, or where someone other than Cheryl could have sent a text to her carpool friend stating that she had forgotten her badge at home. Cheryl, and only Cheryl, knew that she had forgotten her badge prior to her sharing that information with her carpool friend.

I cannot understand any scenario where Cheryl would voluntarily tell someone else that she had forgotten her badge at home and needed to inform her carpool friends that she would be late. Before the husband was ruled out, it was conceivable that he had staged the badge and text facts, but given that he has been ruled out, that also rules out the possibility that the badge and text facts are staged.

 

[MU42M]

Me three!!!! Surveillance to me means video but I have talked with a friend that has a newer security/alarm system than what we have, same company but friend just recently moved into a new house & equipment was upgraded. But she told me the only camera she has is in her doorbell, so when someone rings it or even just knocks she can look & see who it is, but in order for it to record the alarm has to be set, as in she enters her code to leave the house or go to bed at night. I forgot to ask how long the recording can be viewed or saved.
So my thought is for either DeBoer to have been recorded on surveillance or video, I'd think the alarm would've had to have been set, 1st when hubby left the house & then again when Cheryl left. But then I find myself wondering why the 1st to leave would've activated the alarm if the other was still in the house about to leave as well, why not just set the alarm once when the last to leave left??? I'm so confused by this. Anyone have an alarm/security/surveillance system that does this & that can explain it to me as I am totally not up to par in knowing or understanding how it works. Ours is a simple put your code in & leave, if an intruder comes or something trips the alarm, alarm goes off, alarm company contacts my husband or I & asks if we're ok or do they need to dispatch LE. Simple. Lol


The thoughts & opinions stated above are that, MY random thoughts & opinions.

I don't know how theirs is set up but ours could produce a similar scenario. We have a video and alarm system.

Here's how it would show one spouse but not the other: my husband always parks in the garage while I park outside. When he leaves the house, he puts the alarm in "armed but present" mode, meaning it will alert to any windows/doors opening but won't turn on the motion triggers since I'm still in the house. He exits through the garage in his car that has tinted windows. None of our exterior cameras would be able to verify specifically it was him leaving, but you'd sure assume so by the alarm pattern and seeing someone leave our house in the car. When I leave, the alarm gets set to an "armed, no presence" mode, which activates motion detection within the house in addition to the other alerts. I exit through the front door, and you'd see me enter my car from all of the cameras outside our house and the cameras facing our driveway from the neighbor's house. So, the surveillance system would show me as a person; for my husband, you could only see when he armed the system and his car left.

Another way this could happen: our surveillance system only RECORDS video when the cameras pick up motion detection at a level we've triggered it to record to. Some of our cameras are not triggered to record to the level of someone walking around (because we'd have nonstop video every time the dogs went potty or the kids chased a ball). If he parked his car out of range of the main cameras we have set up with higher detection levels, there'd be NO recording of him going to/from his car. The only thing to verify him leaving would be the time he punched in the alarm code.

And, some people have literally just basic ADT monitoring and a trio of exterior cameras for surveillance that don't cover the whole perimeter of the house. Those probably don't even pick up exiting a side garage and hopping in your car there.

Anyways, there are three ways I can think of off the top of my head to explain the surveillance system language.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk