Found Deceased WA - Cheryl DeBoer, 54, Mountlake Terrace, 8 February 2016 #5

[otto]

What I have concluded so far is that when she stopped to text her friend:
1. She was outside her car checking to make sure it was not there. Then surprised attacked.
2. She was inside her car and someone knocked on her window or got her attention for a need of help etc

I strongly do not think her car was used to transport her especially after her son said someone was there at 8 am and her car was there. It was either someone with their own vehicle or someone who lived very close (like on that road or block) it would be too risky to have a piece of hair or finger prints to be left behind.

The cuts on her fingers I believe we're from a knife possibly held to her throat and her first reaction would be to grab it. (It would be mine) if someone put a knife to my throat and told me to move don't say anything etc. I would do it. Also as I said before it could have been from her phone if it was a iPhone. Maybe trying to call for help etc she cut herself.

The blood in her car may not even be related to the cuts on her fingers. She may have been hit really hard to subdue her. So blood splatter. It was not mentioned right away so I don't believe it was a large amount.

I've never even seen the culvert. I've driven through MLK plenty times just not in that direction so I do believe also that is was someone who know this area. Very well.

I'm not sure the motive but my guesses would be sexual assault, quick money for drugs (it was early and drugs may have worn off), or thrill kill. Not in the order from most likely to less likely. Revenge is also on the list but least likely to me.

I'm glad police are being tight lipped about info. If we can see it then so can the killer and I would hate for whoever it was to go free because of a not so tight investigation. Gather all the evidence and take the time to help solve this case before anyone else gets hurt.

That being said I am frustrated it is not moving faster but I do have faith they have a reason. In the meanwhile ill keep myself and daughter as safe as I can.

All above is in my own opinion. Moo.

BBM

On what basis would you assume that she was "outside her car"? We know that she was abruptly cut off from her text discussion about carpool. It makes sense that she was in her car at that time. There were 2 minutes between being 4 blocks away and her texting.

If Cheryl's car didn't move between 7AM and when it was found by her husband, then someone with his own vehicle transported Cheryl to the culvert.

We don't know how she received self-inflicted injuries, but unless she carried a knife, she didn't self inflict injuries with a knife. Anyone who is hit by a car has internal injuries, and perhaps accident related cut fingers. Beating really hard on fingers might cause blood spatter, but I doubt it.

Sexual assault is likely, money for drugs is unlikely (did Cheryl carry $1-200 in cash?). Money for drugs doesn't need to end in murder with the body hidden 1.6 miles away.

It's common for readers to become frustrated with the lack of information once the information grows stale. Feb 17, the last release of any comment, is stale.

 

[Scentamental]

I find it hard to believe (but do) that Cheryl's car was parked on the street it was on a Monday morning, when the Park n Ride usually fills up by 7 am and the parking is already happening on the side street and then it goes down both of the other streets leading to the side street.....that no one parked behind Cheryl until almost an hour later. That really surprises me. Makes me wonder if there WAS a car behind her car or one that pulled in behind hers as she parked there, and then was gone again within the hour when the person who parked for the day parked their car. I would hope LE has asked the other parker if they had to wiggle in parellel parking style or not.

 

[IMissCrossfit]

I can't see any reason to assume that Cheryl was meeting someone in the area, or that she powered down her phone when she saw someone familiar - and then her text discussion was ignored.

There's nothing about the circumstances that I see as "someone familiar". What makes you think that this is someone familiar? What circumstance suggests that Cheryl's phone was powered down mid-"forgot my badge" conversation because of "someone familiar"?

Let's not forget that she was meeting her carpool, not "someone familiar". She was going to make the entire carpool late if she took 10 minutes to retrieve the badge, but they waited. There's no way that she planned to meet someone familiar between parking her car and meeting the carpool.

Someone familiar and in the area would be someone from the park who was twisted out of his mind at 7:02AM, or some freak trolling the streets near the metro station?

Just because the known plan was to meet with someone 'familiar' doesn't mean she didn't happen to cross paths with 'someone familiar' as she has been parking there how long - and perhaps was 'familiar' with other people that parked or walked through the same area she revisits every day for the last how long to park and get to work. My impression is the she is kind, loving, and friendly. I would bet she was friendly with people and there is a 'possibility' more than not that after so long she 'could be' familiar with not only one person.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

 

[WhisperWorm]

That is an excellent point.

 

[otto]

Cheryl's 'vehicle' was seen passing by video at 56th and 236th at 0700, not 'Cheryl'. Unless someone has come out or behind closed doors confirmed 'Cheryl' was seen driving the car that I have missed.

As I questioned before about whether Cheryl was actually seen getting in the vehicle AND seen driving away in the vehicle no one can be certain it was Cheryl driving away from the home unless some sort of video evidence not only shows a car driving away but who was driving away in it.

'Someone' sent a text at 0702. Since there were no witnesses, no one can confirm it was 'Cheryl', but speculate.

Yea, someone else 'could have' sent the text i.e. if she pulled over, and told the not known to be at the time perp - not sure how this has been narrowed down to a certainty 'it was Cheryl.' Or even the possibility 'it was Cheryl' physically doing the typing. There are no publicly known witnesses that have publicly stated they saw Cheryl send the text.

People can only speculate on whether or not she locked her doors or not that day unless they were with her and know the doors were locked or unlocked. Otherwise, one can only speculate based on any known habits or routine.

Even if doors were found locked or unlocked, unless there are witnesses - no one can be sure if 'Cheryl' locked or unlocked the doors.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

We can split the hair on whether her vehicle was seen on video, or whether was another car that looked just like her car, but why would we?
Asking "someone to come out from behind closed doors" seems a bit like the Salem witch trials. If someone else was seen on video in a car like Cheryl's car, that person should come forward to exclude the 7AM sighting. If someone else was commandeering her car (unlikely) that person is not going to come forward. Odd though that the "someone else" commandeering her car left her car exactly where she may have left it if she had to pull over to send a text about the forgotten badge.

The question about locked/unlocked doors is not really relevant. Cheryl was not in her car, so unlocked or locked doors when the car was found doesn't really matter. It's too late, and much could have changed between the time that she left her house and the time that her car was found.

 

[IMissCrossfit]

There is no splitting hairs. Either she was seen driving or she was not. If she was not seen, it is speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

 

[WhisperWorm]

Stryker, can you tell us if the book found in the car (per Pickard) was your mom's? Also, are you able to validate what Pickard stated; that her phone was definitely powered down vs. battery removed?

I wish you could tell us what of our theories are baseless. We're all so frustrated along with you and keep you and your families in our thoughts constantly.

 

[Miziree]

It was just a thought that maybe she thought the badge fell behind or under a seat so she checked.

The blood splatter I mean that maybe someone hit her while inside the car and it resulted in blood splatter.

By the knife I mean someone came up on her with a knife and she grabbed it.

Some people will do anything for drugs no matter the amount. It could have been accidental and they panicked.

I agree with you on most of your points and post you've been posting. Well thought out and keeps me thinking also.

Moo

 

[Miziree]

I'm not sure why my reply button is not working but my post was in response to Otto's.....

 

[otto]

She parked, texted, someone interrupted her text, powered-down her phone, took her to another vehicle, and no one realizes that they saw something. She probably cooperated - who wouldn't. Other than the self-inflicted injury to two fingers, the blood in her car, she simply vanished from her car around 7AM on Feb 8 for 6 days, and she then re-appeared in a culvert 1.6 miles away.

That required a vehicle, and if her vehicle was parked where it was found at 8AM of Feb 8, then either we have a fast perp, or we have a second vehicle.

 

[IMissCrossfit]

We can split the hair on whether her vehicle was seen on video, or whether was another car that looked just like her car, but why would we?
Asking "someone to come out from behind closed doors" seems a bit like the Salem witch trials. If someone else was seen on video in a car like Cheryl's car, that person should come forward to exclude the 7AM sighting. If someone else was commandeering her car (unlikely) that person is not going to come forward. Odd though that the "someone else" commandeering her car left her car exactly where she may have left it if she had to pull over to send a text about the forgotten badge.

The question about locked/unlocked doors is not really relevant. Cheryl was not in her car, so unlocked or locked doors when the car was found doesn't really matter. It's too late, and much could have changed between the time that she left her house and the time that her car was found.

No the doors being locked or not may not be relevant and it is most certainly not my point.

The point is when there are possibilities one way or another but you are saying you are certain of this and certain of that such as when you say the doors were locked or unlocked. The only way anyone can know one way or the other is if they were in the car with her. The entire point is you are making statements of certainties when there are other possibilities, no witnesses, no facts, but speculation (which is fine) but when they can only be speculations you continue to state them as facts.

One had to be with Cheryl to know it was Cheryl driving..or video confirmation, otherwise we may be able to 'safely presume.'

One had to be with Cheryl to see Cheryl send the text, otherwise it is speculation.

One had to be with Cheryl to know if the doors were locked or unlocked, otherwise...it is speculation (which again, speculation is fine).

But if it is clear there are more than one possibility, one of those cannot be a fact unless proven by i.e. a witness, video, or depending on what we are talking about- DNA evidence, etc.

Facts are proven and supported with evidence, not assumptions.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

 

[mrsgladyskravitz]

That is an excellent point.

Agreed!

It feels borderline absurd to speculate any component, of any case is 100% certain without cold, hard facts.

Unless you were present, i.e. participated in the crime, or have 100% evidential proof that a particular situation transpired, you can not claim with any degree of certainty said situation occurred - you have no standing.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

It was just a thought that maybe she thought the badge fell behind or under a seat so she checked.

The blood splatter I mean that maybe someone hit her while inside the car and it resulted in blood splatter.

By the knife I mean someone came up on her with a knife and she grabbed it.

Some people will do anything for drugs no matter the amount. It could have been accidental and they panicked.

I agree with you on most of your points and post you've been posting. Well thought out and keeps me thinking also.

Moo

I don't wear a badge, but I have keys and access cards. I would never forget where they are. I wouldn't be searching under a car seat for job access cards. I would know that I forgot it, and then think about the last time I used it. In Cheryl's case, it was Friday, and unless she was getting undressed in her car, the badge was not in the car. Right?

If someone attacked Cheryl with a knife and she grabbed the blade, it would be called "defensive wounds". Cheryl's injuries are self-inflicted.
Perhaps someone hit her in her car and it caused blood spatter, but given that she was likely moved to a second vehicle, there should also be profuse bleeding (head injury) that dripped on the pavement outside the car. Also, a severe head injury causing blood spatter would also leave blood on the windshield, right?

 

[IMissCrossfit]

I find it hard to believe (but do) that Cheryl's car was parked on the street it was on a Monday morning, when the Park n Ride usually fills up by 7 am and the parking is already happening on the side street and then it goes down both of the other streets leading to the side street.....that no one parked behind Cheryl until almost an hour later. That really surprises me. Makes me wonder if there WAS a car behind her car or one that pulled in behind hers as she parked there, and then was gone again within the hour when the person who parked for the day parked their car. I would hope LE has asked the other parker if they had to wiggle in parellel parking style or not.

I was wondering the same about the car behind her ...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

 

[IMissCrossfit]

Re: Cheryl's cell phone

Is it possible to detect the "ping" last emitted from Cheryl's cell phone, (prior to being "powered down") came from a parking spot on 58th Ave W, other than where her car was discovered?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

......


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

Agreed!

It feels borderline absurd to speculate any component, of any case is 100% certain without cold, hard facts.

Unless you were present, i.e. participated in the crime, or have 100% evidential proof that a particular situation transpired, you can not claim with any degree of certainty said situation occurred - you have no standing.

BBM

What should we assume to be true, avoiding to "borderline speculate"?

Video of a crime is a bit much to ask, so being present is out of the question. It is still possible to understand what happened based on what is known.

 

[otto]

Quote Originally Posted by Scentamental

I find it hard to believe (but do) that Cheryl's car was parked on the street it was on a Monday morning, when the Park n Ride usually fills up by 7 am and the parking is already happening on the side street and then it goes down both of the other streets leading to the side street.....that no one parked behind Cheryl until almost an hour later. That really surprises me. Makes me wonder if there WAS a car behind her car or one that pulled in behind hers as she parked there, and then was gone again within the hour when the person who parked for the day parked their car. I would hope LE has asked the other parker if they had to wiggle in parellel parking style or not.

Cheryl pulled over to text, and someone else was parked nearby - perhaps directly behind where she parked her car. That person accosted her, abducted her, took her away in his own car. Perhaps she pulled over directly in front of a parked violent perp that morning. Although this happened before 7:05AM, this ideal 7AM parking spot was left vacant for an hour.

 

[mrsgladyskravitz]

BBM

What should we assume to be true, avoiding to "borderline speculate"?

Video of a crime is a bit much to ask, so being present is out of the question. It is still possible to understand what happened based on what is known.

Hi Otto,

Looks like you answered your own question!



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[IMissCrossfit]

BBM

What should we assume to be true, avoiding to "borderline speculate"?

Video of a crime is a bit much to ask, so being present is out of the question. It is still possible to understand what happened based on what is known.

Exactly

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

Hi Otto,

Looks like you answered your own question!

The question is: what can we assume to be true.
It is possible to understand what happened based on what is known to be true, but if we are going to deny that Cheryl's car was seen on video at 7AM - that it was someone else's car, sure, but what do we accept to be true? Does excluding the 7AM video change the scenario?